"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[erikun]

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?

The biggest problem is that the phrasing implies that non-phantasms would be automatically saves against. This is an issue, because there are non-phantasm illusions that are still mind-effecting (patterns, mostly) and thus could sensibly affect the caster as normal. Furthermore, this is supposed to be a "rulebook" designed to clear up confusion over rules; a rule which is only causes more confusion isn't likely that helpful.

The rest are minor complaints. If you change the phrasing from 'phantasms' to 'mind-effecting illusions' then you're left with rule 38C exactly, which makes me wonder why both with rule 54A. And the title, while a silly comment, definitely should be changed to something more fitting to what the rule actually does.

[Malachei]

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.

Yes. And I find that ambiguous and this is one of the reasons why I think this needs a RACSD clarification.

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.

Sure. But intentional disbelief creates all kinds of issues (an example would be a bridge that one character can walk upon, and another cannot).

My reasoning is based on the All About Illusions article, which I find a good solution. It also answers the issue with the wording of "needs no save", which I find ambiguous in the first place. Of course, the article is not RAW, but in this thread, we're not limiting the discussion to RAW, because, well, the thread is called RACSD.

The biggest problem is that the phrasing implies that non-phantasms would be automatically saves against. This is an issue, because there are non-phantasm illusions that are still mind-effecting (patterns, mostly) and thus could sensibly affect the caster as normal. Furthermore, this is supposed to be a "rulebook" designed to clear up confusion over rules; a rule which is only causes more confusion isn't likely that helpful.

The rest are minor complaints. If you change the phrasing from 'phantasms' to 'mind-effecting illusions' then you're left with rule 38C exactly, which makes me wonder why both with rule 54A.

Well, the question would be whether this applies only to phantasms, or to mind-affecting spells in general.

And the title, while a silly comment, definitely should be changed to something more fitting to what the rule actually does.

Note that I used the correct title in my post above. It's only wrong on the first page of the thread. This is not to blame Andorax, who's doing an excellent job in updating all of this.

These are the titles of the suggestions I posted:

Rule 54: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions

Rule 54b: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency

[Axier]

On Rule 039; Epic Feat qualification only refers to Dragons, not TRUE Dragons, and therefore, Dragonwraught Kobolds apply REGARDLESS of age categories, becauese they gain the Dragon creature type.

As for whether or not they are True Dragons, it was clarified on page 69 of RoTD, stating that their list of true dragon choices for half-dragons contained ALL that were published to date, and Dragonwraught Kobolds are not on that list.

Also, on Loredrake and the like, RHD regardless of how you advanced has a minimum of 0HD, therefore Dragonwraught Kobolds have 0d12 RHD, and could technically trade those for 0d10 RHD, but not really be affected. This would however, only matter if they where true dragons, which sadly (And I say this as one who has used the cheese), they are not, as stated above.

If something is not mentioned as a prerequesite, it isn't a prerequesite, and d12 RHD is not a prerequesite, nor do they have a minimum of 0 listed as a prereq.

[Andorax]

Latest set of votes noted...embarassing title typo fixed.

Nothing much else to say.

[Jeff the Green]

Yes. And I find that ambiguous and this is one of the reasons why I think this needs a RACSD clarification.

Yes, but the point is that it's reasonable to interpret that as saying that you can deliberately fail the save, and since it's reasonable to interpret it that way, anything else isn't RACSD.

Sure. But intentional disbelief creates all kinds of issues (an example would be a bridge that one character can walk upon, and another cannot).

I assume you mean intentional belief? And I'm not sure what the problem is; that's not exactly the weirdest thing in DnD. In fact, the bridge you can walk on only if you believe it's there (despite evidence to the contrary) is pretty common element of fiction, especially if you delve into fantasy fiction inspired by religion.

As for whether or not they are True Dragons, it was clarified on page 69 of RoTD, stating that their list of true dragon choices for half-dragons contained ALL that were published to date, and Dragonwraught Kobolds are not on that list.

Huh. I'd never seen that before. Is there any argument against that? Because I don't see any.

[Andorax]

Huh. I'd never seen that before. Is there any argument against that? Because I don't see any.

It was a conclusion reached in (yet another) Kobold thread, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245069

If you look at pages 8 or so on, you'll see where it came up...it's being hailed as a remarkable discovery, an actual clear-cut answer to one of the age-old questions.

[Axier]

Huh. I'd never seen that before. Is there any argument against that? Because I don't see any.

Check this thread. Near the end you discover a statement on page 69 of RoTD, that states that the lists given in reference to Half-Dragons, Dragonwraught, and Draconic Heritage options are basically a complete list of True Dragons "to date", and it does not include Dragonwraught.

*EDIT: ninja'd, like an hour ago...

[TuggyNE]

On the whole 038/054 debate, here's a table of the different conditions that have been proposed so far, and the rule variants that would prevent a caster from believing their own spells in each category:

{table=head]School | Has Save | Non-Mind-Affecting
Figment | 38A, 38B, 54A | 38A, 38B, 38C
Glamer | 38A, 38B, 54A | 38A, 38B, 38C
Pattern | 38A, 54A | —
Phantasm | 38A | —
Shadow | 38A, 54A, 54B | 38A, 38C[/table]

Given that (G)SE appears to have a specific clause that already rules out Contingency from working, I believe 038C is adequate*. My reasoning for this is based on the idea that a character normally makes a Will saving throw to gain an incontrovertible inner knowledge that an illusion is false; the caster of a particular spell already possesses that knowledge in most cases, but a mind-affecting illusion is unexpected enough to require the usual mental effort in all cases. (This last mostly because of the spells that specifically call it out as working.)

I assume you mean intentional belief? And I'm not sure what the problem is; that's not exactly the weirdest thing in DnD. In fact, the bridge you can walk on only if you believe it's there (despite evidence to the contrary) is pretty common element of fiction, especially if you delve into fantasy fiction inspired by religion.

That's an excellent and thought-provoking example. Hmm.

The usual mechanic in fiction seems to be a reversed Will save; you can't simply choose automatically to accept it, but have to make an effort. This isn't well represented by the Shadow rules currently, or in any of the revisions, although it looks like dark way from SpC attempts to mimic it (I don't have the text).



*Edit: Andorax, please mark me down as disagreeing with 038A, agreeing with 038C, and abstaining from 038B, 054A, and 054B (all of which are more or less correct, but redundant with the more complete 038C).

[Jeff the Green]

The usual mechanic in fiction seems to be a reversed Will save; you can't simply choose automatically to accept it, but have to make an effort. This isn't well represented by the Shadow rules currently, or in any of the revisions, although it looks like dark way from SpC attempts to mimic it (I don't have the text).

I agree it's not a perfect analogy, but I also don't think it's as simple as saying it's a reverse will save, since you don't have to have particularly strong will to believe in them/recognize them as true, you just have to "have faith," since the moral of the story is usually something like "in order to reach paradise, you have to believe in things you can't verify with your senses."

That's not terribly relevant, though, since the main point was that there are considerably weirder things in D&D than creating illusions so good you believe in them that we accept all the time.

[lesser_minion]

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.

That analogy doesn't work here.

What the rules are saying is that proof is sufficient on its own -- you can make a saving throw anyway, and you can voluntarily fail it, but you would still disbelieve the illusion anyway.

This is also reinforced by the explanation of what happens when you fail a saving throw: "the character fails to notice that something is amiss". If you already know that the illusion is fake, what exactly does this mean? You can't unlearn something that you already know.

As for voluntarily accepting the existence of things through faith, the whole trope doesn't make sense for D&D. In settings where that trope applies, the entire basis is that belief in the supernatural has to be irrational on some level. In a D&D setting, the supernatural exists, and nearly anyone can verify that it does.

[Andorax]

Latest discusion, and votes, duly noted.

[TuggyNE]

So, here's the promised (and much-procrastinated-on) first set of adaptations of Dysfunctional Rules. As usual, my rule nicknames are pretty lame.

It's impossible to take 10 on a Listen check (DC 11) for a conversation going on 10' away unless you have at least one rank or unusual Wis. For this, I'd suggest fiddling with the DCs, probably starting with "hear people talking" at DC -5 or so. This allows talking in a normal voice at up to 50' away, taking 10.

So 055: Listening Is A Free Check
The DC to hear people talking is reduced to -5 base.

Alternatively, put in some nonsense about a bonus if the conversation was intended for you to hear, or something like that.


Commoners being unable to identify members of their own race, farm animals, and so forth is an example of another scaling DC that's buggy at the low end. The simplest solution is to bite the bullet (bulette?) and base it on HD + 9.

056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10
Identification DCs are adjusted to 9 + monster HD, in general.


Add to 050 as follows:
Add the following to the Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy ability: "The Frenzied Berserker cannot be knocked unconscious by non-lethal damage while in a Deathless Frenzy."


057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization
Add the following clause to the description of the neutralize poison spell: "A poison that has previously been delayed by use of delay poison or similar can also be detoxified with no penalty."

Which raises a question: should there actually be a bonus for delayed poison?


058: Various Adjustments to Equipment

• Ladders cost 5sp
• Spellbooks cost 25gp
• Pages of paper cost 2sp each
• Chain costs 2gp per foot
• No weapon or item of equipment costs less than one copper piece
• Flasks come in two sizes: small (1 pint, ½ lb, 2cp) and large (2 quarts, 1½ lb, 3cp).

Any adjustments made by those more familiar with medieval gear, or more willing to tediously map things out, are welcomed.


059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent
Adjust the first sentence of Improved Precise Shot's Benefit: "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus from cover granted targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance from cover granted targets by anything less than total concealment."


060: Dread Necromancers Are The Scariest Creatures Around (name inspired by NeoSeraphi)
A Dread Necromancer's fear aura has a duration of 1 round per level.


061: How to Make Magic Oils
The first sentence of Brew Potion's Benefit changes as follows: "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures; alternatively, you can create an oil of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more objects."

[willpell]

I'm working on a slant on my campaign world where the difference between RACSD and RAW is an aspect of the war between Chaos and Law. In my campaign world, Law literally has a "perfect" version of the D&D rules in its custody, more complex than any human could possibly learn and with a lot of exception cases that the mere mortal rules we play by don't contain, but with some examples of optomization cheese still very much possible for exactly the same reason that Wotco allowed it - rewarding system mastery. Chaos despises this whole idea and wants everything to work the way the person doing it thought it was going to, which basically means encouraging the DM to make capricious and contrary rulings about what should and shouldn't work based on which individuals are involved. So the entire cosmos becomes a battleground, and every DM arbitration is a strike either for the side of inflexible rules or individual attention to situations.

[lesser_minion]

62: Because infinite chickens are only funny once:

As part of the action to cast a spell, and as long as you are not grappled, you may also retrieve and prepare any components it requires. Alternatively, you may retrieve and prepare spell components as a move action.

Fixes the infinite chicken exploit and makes it harder to cast spells while grappled.

[Andorax]

Updates...good to hear from you again.


Regarding rule 060...wasn't there another class that also had this problem? I can't recall which one, but it wasn't Dread Necro. Thought it was some sort of combat class...

...ah, there it is. Scarlet Corsair's Frightening Lunge. Hope you don't mind me tagging it along on Rule 060?




Rule 050 has been reworded/added to. Please look it over again and be sure you still agree with it (I do).

Rules 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061 and 062 have been added...and are currently all approved.

[Tyndmyr]

62: Because infinite chickens are only funny once:

As part of the action to cast a spell, and as long as you are not grappled, you may also retrieve and prepare any components it requires. Alternatively, you may retrieve and prepare spell components as a move action.

Fixes the infinite chicken exploit and makes it harder to cast spells while grappled.

I'm all for fixing infinite chickens, but the grappling/casting seems like an additional house-rule, not a common sense fix.

[Kazyan]

Voting "No" to 055-059, because the numbers are up for debate, and therefore not common sense. Even a rather slow (Int 6) commoner should be able to figure out that a dwarf is a dwarf. Voting "yes" to everything else in that post.

063a: But we already have a Black Dragon
The Obsidian Dragon is a True Dragon.

063b: But we already have a Purple Dragon
The Incarnum Dragon is a True Dragon.

From the DWK debate thread. Separating them because the Incarnum Dragon is Extraplanar, and there is precedent for Extrapalar dragons not being counted as True Dragons.

[ThiagoMartell]

Agree with 39, mostly because RAW has already proved dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons anyway.

[lesser_minion]

I'm all for fixing infinite chickens, but the grappling/casting seems like an additional house-rule, not a common sense fix.

Actually, the bit about making it harder to cast spells in a grapple was a mistake. I was working based on this bit of the rules:

You can attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided ... you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need...

Which is completely ineffective if it's always a free action to retrieve and prepare your material components. I missed the fact that retrieving material components to cast a spell becomes a full-round action when casting a spell.

In any event, here's an edit:

62 (edit) -- Because Infinite Chickens are only Funny Once:

As long as you are not grappled, you may retrieve and prepare any components required for a spell as part of the same action used to cast it.

There's no need for the "otherwise, it's a move action", since that's not actually a special case (retrieving a stored item is normally a move action) and spelling it out would actually produce a potentially broken rule.

[TuggyNE]

...ah, there it is. Scarlet Corsair's Frightening Lunge. Hope you don't mind me tagging it along on Rule 060?

I don't think that should be a problem.

Voting "No" to 055-059, because the numbers are up for debate, and therefore not common sense. Even a rather slow (Int 6) commoner should be able to figure out that a dwarf is a dwarf. Voting "yes" to everything else in that post.

While the specific numbers are debatable, the problems identified are not. I'd be happy to adjust details, of course.
(In particular, by RAW, the precise problem is that an Int 6 Commoner cannot determine that a dwarf is a dwarf; even investing max cross-class skill ranks gives only a 50% chance of determining this. Declaring "oh the rules are fine because we can rule zero them to make sense" would be fallacious; if you need to fix them with common sense, by all means let's fix them here.)

62: Because infinite chickens are only funny once:
As long as you are not grappled, you may retrieve and prepare any components required for a spell as part of the same action used to cast it.

It seems to me it would be more sensible to fix the flaw in question, rather than changing unrelated parts of the rules. (E.g., "Up to 15 chickens may be drawn in a given round.") Still, this is not a bad idea to clarify this side.

[Yorae]

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agree

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Disagree - Features that improve with your level should continue to improve, BUT Legacy Champion should be unable to advance any class that has fewer than 10 written levels.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agree

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agree

Rule 007: Lions with Hooves - Agree

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Disagree

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? - Agree EXCEPT FOR "If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available." - Not sure about this.

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? - Agree

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed - Agree

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped - Disagree - How exactly are you exerting force of will against an effect while you are napping? The only save that makes sense while asleep is Fortitude.

Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? - Disagree, but there should be a provision that says if you hide behind the shield, the shield is not hidden, only you and your other possessions. Likewise with cover - the shield is exempted from cover, even though you are still in possession of it while taking cover behind it.

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield! - Agree

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles - Agree

Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead - Agree

Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats - Agree

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified - Agree - Taking Awesome Blow and using it when you increase your size, etc. is cool.

Rule 030: Strict Aptitude - Disagree

Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield - Agree

Rule 032: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity - Agree

Rule 033: No Double Dipping - Disagree

Rule 034: Armored Outfits - Agree, with the provision that clothing should not provide plain armor bonuses - that just doesn't make sense. Enhancement bonus to armor is kosher.

Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule - Agree

Rule 037: Minus Infinity - Disagree - There is a distinction between infinite, near infinite, and without limit that isn't made here. Also, if something could logically happen infinitely, then.. well... it should.

Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist - Disapprove - I'd say that they can automatically disbelieve, if desired. Let the poor illusionists fantasize, eh?

Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur - Sort of approve. Imo, should qualift as True Dragons, but be unable to take an option that trades out something they don't have.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain - Disagree - the "cooldown" should apply even when changing forms, BUT only to that specific ability.

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

Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage - Err.. Disagree? Doesn't really make sense to me.

Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets - Agree

Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified - Agree

Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With? - Agree

Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor - Agree

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality - Disagree - Imo, if the successful save results in a greater percentage, then the failed save should be bumped up to the same amount or, better, no longer require a save. I can see the illusory elements making a spell more effective than the real thing.

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration - Agree, but just remove "living or nonliving" and it "disintegrates...matter".

Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy - Unsure - Just because you can't kill him doesn't mean you can't knock him out... but then a single point of nonlethal causes the guy to fall over... hmm...

Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet. - Agree

Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters - Agree

Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items - Agree

Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions - Disagree

Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency - Disagree

Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check - Disagree, not really thought out.

Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10 - STRONGLY Disagree, more powerful monsters are not less notable or identifiable because they are more powerful.

Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization - Agree


Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs - Umm.. sure? As long as ladders cost at least double what ropes cost, sure thing. The other stuff... why?

Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent - Divided - Should ignore total cover, but not total concealment. Shouldn't it be "omniscient"?

Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils - Agree - why it doesn't already say this is bewildering.

Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once - Agreed - it grants you the action to draw the component as part of the spell, just like touch spells grant you a touch attack as part of the spell.

[lesser_minion]

It seems to me it would be more sensible to fix the flaw in question, rather than changing unrelated parts of the rules. (E.g., "Up to 15 chickens may be drawn in a given round.") Still, this is not a bad idea to clarify this side.

The spell component pouch is the source of much of the issue, and it's still potentially problematic even without chickens -- imagine what else you might claim the ability to pull from your spell component pouch in infinite quantities as a free action.

64A -- Giving Quick Draw a point:

Since you do not need a sleight of hand check in order to draw a concealed weapon, you may not take a penalty to your sleight of hand check in order to do so more quickly.

64B -- Giving the Gnomish Quickrazor a point:

You may not attempt to conceal a weapon more quickly by taking a penalty to your sleight of hand check.

64A should be uncontroversial RAW, but I've seen it argued otherwise by people who I normally consider to know their stuff. As far as I'm aware, 64B isn't, hence why I separated it out.

The problem both of these are intended to fix is similar -- if they don't apply, you can effectively draw or sheathe certain weapons as a free action by abusing the sleight of hand rules.

[TuggyNE]

Rule 030: Strict Aptitude - Disagree

Would you mind expanding on this a little more? I think it would be useful to know what you see as problematic in this.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits - Agree, with the provision that clothing should not provide plain armor bonuses - that just doesn't make sense. Enhancement bonus to armor is kosher.

I personally feel really funky about the usually accepted stacking of magic vestment with bracers of armor, which is basically the same thing. Perhaps this should be another proposed rule....

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain - Disagree - the "cooldown" should apply even when changing forms, BUT only to that specific ability.

I assume you mean "specific breath weapon" not just "breath weapon"? 040 as written is intended to block out as many abuses as possible with a strict view of shapechange, while your suggestion is a bit more permissive.

Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check - Disagree, not really thought out.

Fair enough, this one is probably the roughest of this last batch. Any suggestions on fixing it? (See my previous post, linked a few paragraphs down, for more analysis.)

Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10 - STRONGLY Disagree, more powerful monsters are not less notable or identifiable because they are more powerful.

While you have a point, I didn't invent that aspect of it. 056 adjusts all DCs down by 1, which allows Taking 10 on 1 HD creatures; it has no other effect, because the existing rules for Knowledge skills already scale identification DCs by HD.
I'd love to fix the Knowledge rules so they make more sense overall, but I'm not entirely sure how they should scale, and I'm not aware of any consensus on it. Still, if you or someone else can figure out a way to do it, I'll help as I can.
EDIT: An old WotC forum thread attempted to create customized lore entries for every monster listing. This would probably be a better starting point, but is unmistakably and thoroughly homebrew, not merely common sense.

Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs - Umm.. sure? As long as ladders cost at least double what ropes cost, sure thing. The other stuff... why?

Ah, I see I should have linked to my previous post on this. It has a longer explanation, taken from another thread, for each of these.

Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent - Divided - Should ignore total cover, but not total concealment. Shouldn't it be "omniscient"?

Either phrasing works for me . Also, again this is merely copying what's there and making the minimum possible change; IPS by (apparent) RAI ignores ordinary cover and ordinary concealment, but not total cover or total concealment. Can you explain in a bit more detail why you'd consider it common sense to ignore total cover as well?

Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils - Agree - why it doesn't already say this is bewildering.

Ain't that the truth.

Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once - Agreed - it grants you the action to draw the component as part of the spell, just like touch spells grant you a touch attack as part of the spell.

Yeah, this is probably a good enough reason for me. Agree with the edited version of 062.

[Kazyan]

While the specific numbers are debatable, the problems identified are not. I'd be happy to adjust details, of course.
(In particular, by RAW, the precise problem is that an Int 6 Commoner cannot determine that a dwarf is a dwarf; even investing max cross-class skill ranks gives only a 50% chance of determining this. Declaring "oh the rules are fine because we can rule zero them to make sense" would be fallacious; if you need to fix them with common sense, by all means let's fix them here.)

The rules aren't correct, but I don't think there's any fix that is obviously common sense. That's how borked the rules are.

[Yorae]

Would you mind expanding on this a little more? I think it would be useful to know what you see as problematic in this.

In retrospect, probably a more sane idea to treat it just like the warblade ability. I just enjoy the ability to use weapon style feats with other weapons.

I assume you mean "specific breath weapon" not just "breath weapon"? 040 as written is intended to block out as many abuses as possible with a strict view of shapechange, while your suggestion is a bit more permissive.

Not terribly sure about this - I suppose it depends on how different the breath weapons are. For example, I wouldn't allow shapchanging to a Leonal, using Lay on Hands, then changing to an Avoral and using its Lay on Hands, since they are the same ability.

Fair enough, this one is probably the roughest of this last batch. Any suggestions on fixing it? (See my previous post, linked a few paragraphs down, for more analysis.)

Hmm.. looking more closely at the SRD entry for listen, it is pretty vague, isn't it? It doesn't really define how loud "talking" is. -5 is probably sane. Maybe with a bonus of the person talking is actively directing the conversation to you?

While you have a point, I didn't invent that aspect of it. 056 adjusts all DCs down by 1, which allows Taking 10 on 1 HD creatures; it has no other effect, because the existing rules for Knowledge skills already scale identification DCs by HD.
I'd love to fix the Knowledge rules so they make more sense overall, but I'm not entirely sure how they should scale, and I'm not aware of any consensus on it. Still, if you or someone else can figure out a way to do it, I'll help as I can.
EDIT: An old WotC forum thread attempted to create customized lore entries for every monster listing. This would probably be a better starting point, but is unmistakably and thoroughly homebrew, not merely common sense.

Ah, I didn't actually realize that was the core rule. =\
That really doesn't make any sense.

Either phrasing works for me . Also, again this is merely copying what's there and making the minimum possible change; IPS by (apparent) RAI ignores ordinary cover and ordinary concealment, but not total cover or total concealment. Can you explain in a bit more detail why you'd consider it common sense to ignore total cover as well?

Oops, thought the original did that. Disregard, please. =p

[TuggyNE]

The rules aren't correct, but I don't think there's any fix that is obviously common sense. That's how borked the rules are.

Well, I'm fairly sure 056 is an improvement; I will agree it's not enough on its own, though, and something like the forum thread I linked is probably necessary to really do a good job. But that's basically out of scope for the thread. (It would make a good entry in "RAW-that's-stupid-and-needs-detailed-DM-attention", certainly.)

In retrospect, probably a more sane idea to treat it just like the warblade ability. I just enjoy the ability to use weapon style feats with other weapons.

Well, it's not like common sense is binding; it's just a strong recommendation.
Also, the original phrasing of 030 was split into Loose ("The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces.") and Strict options; 030A was universally disapproved, and therefore eventually removed.

Not terribly sure about this - I suppose it depends on how different the breath weapons are. For example, I wouldn't allow shapchanging to a Leonal, using Lay on Hands, then changing to an Avoral and using its Lay on Hands, since they are the same ability.

Well, the breath weapons I know of usually come in three types: cone of (usually elemental) energy; line of (usually elemental) energy; cone of status effect. For dragons specifically:

Once a dragon breathes, it can’t breathe again until 1d4 rounds later. If a dragon has more than one type of breath weapon, it still can breathe only once every 1d4 rounds.

The last sentence is basically the model I'm working off of.

Lay on Hands would be another example of something I'd like to cut down on; as far as I can tell, neither standard RAW nor 040 correct this particular abuse. I'll see if I can phrase something....

Hmm.. looking more closely at the SRD entry for listen, it is pretty vague, isn't it? It doesn't really define how loud "talking" is. -5 is probably sane. Maybe with a bonus of the person talking is actively directing the conversation to you?

I thought of that, but decided that relying on a circumstance bonus or whatever just to make it work in the best case was still not good enough, given that most people are perfectly capable of routinely overhearing conversations from 50' away. Adding in a circumstance bonus for mutual focusing would probably be fine, but I'm not sure it's crucial to list it out.

Ah, I didn't actually realize that was the core rule. =\
That really doesn't make any sense.

It really doesn't; it's just an excuse to be lazy and not write up specific information for each monster. To be fair, that is a lot of work, but still!

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, the bit about making it harder to cast spells in a grapple was a mistake. I was working based on this bit of the rules:



Which is completely ineffective if it's always a free action to retrieve and prepare your material components. I missed the fact that retrieving material components to cast a spell becomes a full-round action when casting a spell.

In any event, here's an edit:

62 (edit) -- Because Infinite Chickens are only Funny Once:

As long as you are not grappled, you may retrieve and prepare any components required for a spell as part of the same action used to cast it.

There's no need for the "otherwise, it's a move action", since that's not actually a special case (retrieving a stored item is normally a move action) and spelling it out would actually produce a potentially broken rule.

That change is perfect, thanks. I support it now.

[whibla]

I have a couple of thoughts regarding Rule 56
The rules for knowledge skills actually already make (almost) perfect sense, despite the stick they receive. Without any ranks in a knowledge skill it defaults to an intelligence check, but you can still take a 10. Take the following example(s) of an average joe:

What am I? 10 + 2 (circumstance: I am one) = 12. I am human.

Who are you? 10 + 2 (circumstance: you gave birth to me etc.) = Oh, you're my mum.

What is that? 10 + 2 (circumstance: looks just like Spark Flamehair the blacksmith) = It's a Dwarf.

It does, granted, fall down slightly when it comes to horses which are 3 HD, but then the suggested solution of reducing the check DC to 9+HD doesn't really get around this general problem. I agree with the principle, but I disagree with the rule.
To my mind the solution would actually be to state that there exists a body of common knowledge (which would, of necessity, be locale specific and regionally dependant) of which everyone is aware. There is no need to make a knowledge check when accessing this body of common knowledge.

[TuggyNE]

I have a couple of thoughts regarding Rule 56
The rules for knowledge skills actually already make (almost) perfect sense, despite the stick they receive.

Actually, I disagree; they really make little to no sense on the whole. I did hope to make a quick fix to some of the worst problems, but I'm no longer sure even that will work. Examples: the older, larger, and more powerful a red dragon becomes, the harder it is to realize you should use cold damage on it. A dire bear is more difficult to recognize and take precautions against than a brown bear, which is in turn more bewildering than a black, purely by virtue of being more dangerous. A draft horse is harder to understand than a pixie; a boar more mysterious than a lantern archon or lemure. Worst of all, by strict RAW, you could argue that a Human Fighter 20 is almost impossible to identify as human by anyone under level 10 or so. These are all terrible conclusions, but the system is full of them, because number of hit dice, power, challenge rating, or whatever really bears very little relation to how well-known and well-understood something is.

Without any ranks in a knowledge skill it defaults to an intelligence check, but you can still take a 10. Take the following example(s) of an average joe:

What am I? 10 + 2 (circumstance: I am one) = 12. I am human.

Who are you? 10 + 2 (circumstance: you gave birth to me etc.) = Oh, you're my mum.

What is that? 10 + 2 (circumstance: looks just like Spark Flamehair the blacksmith) = It's a Dwarf.

You still run into problems if a commoner, whose merchant cousin often mentioned dwarves, sees one for the first time; are you really going to elaborate on all the possible ways of finding out about a creature as being circumstance bonuses? If so, that says the rule (which is designed to measure your knowledge already) has failed. You're left with "does he have a reasonable way to have found out about this in backstory/roleplaying? if yes, auto-success; if no, auto-failure".

It does, granted, fall down slightly when it comes to horses which are 3 HD, but then the suggested solution of reducing the check DC to 9+HD doesn't really get around this general problem. I agree with the principle, but I disagree with the rule.

Technically, combining your technique of circumstance bonuses with the adjusted DC would work, in a sense. I don't think that's the right solution, and the prevalence of perfectly ordinary 3HD and 4HD creatures is a pretty severe strain to any HD-scaling system.

To my mind the solution would actually be to state that there exists a body of common knowledge (which would, of necessity, be locale specific and regionally dependant) of which everyone is aware. There is no need to make a knowledge check when accessing this body of common knowledge.

That might work, although that's basically stating "there's no rule for certain common cases, make it up". Somewhat inelegant, but would solve some of it. Of course, my intended solution was inelegant as well, and doesn't even seem to handle all the intended cases.


Therefore, I'm suggesting 056 be suspended until I or someone else can think of a better idea.

[willpell]

Examples: the older, larger, and more powerful a red dragon becomes, the harder it is to realize you should use cold damage on it.

Perhaps this is a sort of penumbra effect of Frightful Presence - the dragon radiates so much ancient and awful power that your brain starts shutting down slightly just for being near it, and seemingly obvious facts like "use an ice spell dumbass" simply don't emerge from the chaos of your thoughts the way they should. Even if you're immune to fear, perhaps that only arrests the macroscopic effects, and you still have certain subconscious reactions to how horrifying and dangerous the thing you're intentionally moving closer to actually is. (Also this check only applies if you've never fought a red dragon before, or if you're somehow having trouble recognizing that this is the same species as the dragon that you did fight before.)

which is in turn more bewildering than a black bear, purely by virtue of being more dangerous.

Precisely. Dangerous = bewildering. Most people are not coldly efficient and logical in the face of deadly peril; even professional soldiers who have been in and out of the war zone a hundred times still have some degree of difficulty coping with the stress every single time they again face the prospect of being blown to bits with a mortar shell.

A draft horse is harder to understand than a pixie

Okay, that one I'll give you is utterly wrong. Perhaps there should be an adjustment of -2 for animals and vermin and +2 for extraplanar creatures, or just something to do with the general commonality in an area.

Worst of all, by strict RAW, you could argue that a Human Fighter 20 is almost impossible to identify as human by anyone under level 10 or so.

It'd be fairly obvious to rule that class levels don't stack with race levels for purpose of this identification - it'd be one check to identify him as human, which would ignore all his HD since there are no human Racial HD, and another check to identify him as a Fighter based on the trappings of his trade; that might be the difficult one, but class-based checks might well be easier rather than harder at higher levels. (I'm not sure whether class identification checks actually exist in RAW but it'd make some sense to houserule them in, perhaps a Knowledge: Combat skill is defined as allowing you to guess what fighter bonus feats a character seems to be properly equipped for or to take the corresponding stance when a fight begins.)

are you really going to elaborate on all the possible ways of finding out about a creature as being circumstance bonuses?

Yes. If the GM is going to try to tell me I can't recognize a dwarf, I'm damn well going to fight for every inch of ground as best I can manage at the time (how hard I can rack my brain will depend on how much of a piece of Swiss cheese my brain happens to be that day).

If so, that says the rule (which is designed to measure your knowledge already) has failed. You're left with "does he have a reasonable way to have found out about this in backstory/roleplaying? if yes, auto-success; if no, auto-failure".

The rule does an imperfect job of what it's meant to accomplish; big surprise. It doesn't mean it has no applicability. The calculation isn't binary all the time; in some cases the range between know/dunno is so narrow as to be practically nonexistent, but in other cases there are a lot of uncertain factors, which is when the dice come into play. If the rules were complicated enough to serve as a perfect model, we'd never find the time to read them, nor remember everything we read. (Though it would be helpful to define a set of rules in such detail if you were programming a computer game that could automate them.)