Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #481
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    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.)
    Not entirely implausible. Now take elementals, which don't have frightful presence, but do have larger varieties that are fundamentally similar and yet harder to identify. How does that make sense?

    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.
    That assumes that CR (and more importantly, HD) approximately maps to perceived danger, which is not always the case. It breaks down, again, in high-CR encounters made up of lots of low-CR foes: your first fight against dozens of dretches is undoubtedly terrifying in the extreme, but studying a single one may give you the key to all of them. And according to the rules a single dretch is dead easy to study: DC 12. "Hit 'em with Sound Burst!"
    (I'd also argue that the danger of a brown bear vs a black bear wouldn't be evident until you made a knowledge check, for example.)

    Then, too, it doesn't work if you're in no immediate danger: suppose you are completely hidden from the monster and can study it at your leisure without it becoming aware of you; or suppose it is aware of you and isn't aggressive at the moment; or suppose you're negotiating with a more human-like opponent. There is no obvious justification for removing the HD-based scaling in any of these cases, even though it makes even less sense than usual.

    Finally, it would justify a fixed penalty on the knowledge check, quite possibly, but one that increases linearly?

    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.
    Technically, pixies aren't extraplanar; they're simply fey that live rather deep in woods and forests. I would expect elves to be familiar with them, as familiar as with horses, or possibly even more so; humans, dwarves, orcs? Not so much.
    The idea of adjustments is a good one, I think.

    [quote]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.)

    Eh, fair enough; that one was a throwaway example of strict RAW that no one would likely follow anyway. (I believe Martial Lore is designed to act like Spellcraft for martial adepts, but I don't know of a Knowledge subskill for the purpose.)

    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.)
    My point is primarily that the rules are sparse enough, and wrong enough, to require a great deal of fixing, and that it should not be too hard to make things a great deal more sensible without massively increasing the rules. However, that may be out of scope for this thread, so I'd like to transfer over to a more specific one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  2. - Top - End - #482
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Not entirely implausible. Now take elementals, which don't have frightful presence, but do have larger varieties that are fundamentally similar and yet harder to identify. How does that make sense?
    Elementals probably should have frightful presence, or a similar ability. They're aspects of primordial chaos, things which are alive that are made of stuff that shouldn't be alive. The more elder and powerful they are, the more nearly they resemble the hoary and eldritch lords of their planes - indeed, if you know just a little about them, they're even more terrifying, because they're literally all small pieces of those ultra-elemental horrors. The only name I remember is Cryonax and there aren't always cold elementals, but if we assume there are, each and every cold elemental is really just a tiny piece of Cryonax, serving as his eyes and ears throughout the world he intends to conquer. So yeah, they ought to be frightening, and more so the more uber they are.

    your first fight against dozens of dretches is undoubtedly terrifying in the extreme, but studying a single one may give you the key to all of them. And according to the rules a single dretch is dead easy to study: DC 12. "Hit 'em with Sound Burst!"
    This is part of why there's a cap on CR scaling. If you are able to think of an easy way to kill them en masse, they aren't that scary. It's when that knowledge check fails that the fear sets in, and if you've invested lots of ranks in study, then you can't fail; you're a veteran demonologist and you know that dretches are pathetic, so there's no chance of you being frightened by the idea of them, even though there's some chance of you being killed if they get the drop on you. (What makes less sense is that a character with a +11 total Intelligence bonus can pick up a single rank and now he can never fail the check, despite having never had the option to try it previously; apparently if you're smart enough, knowledge just falls out of the air into your brain with virtually no effort the moment you deign to acknowledge the topic's existence by familiarizing yourself with it to a trivial extent.)

    Then, too, it doesn't work if you're in no immediate danger
    A cat has virtually no possibility of killing a human being (since we're not Level 1 commoners), and yet ailurophobia is fairly common. Other people are afraid of trees or even flowers, to say nothing of ophidiophobians reacting to a garter snake. Fear of a thing has very little to do with how much actual danger it poses.

    When you see a creature that you've never seen before, the GM rolls to determine whether you're able to comprehend what you're looking at, and if the roll fails, one of the reasons that failure might have occurred is that your character's first reaction was blind, unlreasoning terror of the thing that isn't actually a threat to him. Maybe phobias are more common among the residents of D&D world; it's not like they don't have reason to live in a state of constant near-panic given how absurdly dangerous their reality is. (Indeed, perhaps that's why their society can't evolve beyond the medieval age; they keep being plunged back into the dark ages by witch-panics and plagues and such, and reason can never get a foodhold because the population as a whole is just too anxiety-riddled to be sensible on any unilateral basis.)

    Finally, it would justify a fixed penalty on the knowledge check, quite possibly, but one that increases linearly?
    Sure, why not?

    Eh, fair enough; that one was a throwaway example of strict RAW that no one would likely follow anyway. (I believe Martial Lore is designed to act like Spellcraft for martial adepts, but I don't know of a Knowledge subskill for the purpose.)
    I am now annoyed that they didn't name it Swordcraft or Warcraft, given that "Lore" is a word specifically associated with Knowledge checks.

  3. - Top - End - #483
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    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.
    How do you automatically know the spell is an illusion? Probably true for a prepared caster like a Wizard since he had to succeed in making the Spellcraft roll to learn it in the first place, but what about a Sorcerer who has no ranks in Spellcraft? He doesn't know his spell is an illusion. He knows he makes magic stuff happen.

    On the topic of Knowledge checks to identify common creatures: the biggest problem with this entire setup is the restriction on untrained knowledge checks. Untrained knowledge checks can never, ever be successful if the DC is above 10, so anyone who is not trained in the relevant knowledge skill can never, under any circumstances, identify any creature, because all checks to identify creatures are always at least DC 11. The proposed solution under Rule 056 corrects that problem for 1 HD creatures, so it's an improvement, but it doesn't address the general problem. Circumstance bonuses should be able to allow say, a farmer to identify a horse automatically, but the untrained rule prevents that from being possible unless the farmer has at least 1 rank of Knowledge: Nature.

    Let's see, as for other rules since last I checked:

    Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration
    Yes. There doesn't seem to be any reason why an object that doesn't get a saving throw is immune to disintegration simply based on being living.

    Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy
    Yes. I see no argument against this.

    Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.
    Yes. Again, I see no argument against this.

    Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters
    Yes. I always assumed this was the rule already.

    Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items
    Yes.

    Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions
    No. See above. Also same reasoning as my earlier response to Rule 038.

    Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
    No. I don't see this as common sense. Maybe a reasonable balance rule, but not even necessarily that.

    Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check
    Yes. I am not, at the moment, seeing any problems with this change or with the amount of the change (all the results of this change that I can think of seem to wind up falling within common sense boundaries).

    Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10
    Unsure. This fixes some problems, but misses the core problem. It IS an improvement, but it also misses the point.

    Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization
    I fail to see the point of this one. As far as I can tell from reading the neutralize poison and delay poison descriptions, there is no interaction between those spells that would require this clarification: neutralize poison already does this.

    Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs
    Uhh. Why? Some sort of explanation as to the reasoning behind these changes would be nice.

    Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent
    Yes. Took me a bit to figure this one out though, and a better explanation of its reasoning could help.
    Note: It needs its wording corrected from 'miss chance from cover granted targets by anything less than total concealment' to 'miss chance from concealment granted to targets by anything less than total concealment'.

    Rule 060: Dread Necromancers and Scarlet Corsairs Are The Scariest Creatures Around
    Yes. Lack of duration on these effects looks like a clear oversight, and one round/level seems like a reasonable common-sense duration.
    Note: Perhaps it should be clarified to one round per class level.

    Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils
    Yes. Sure, why not. Not that I recall ever wanting to, but it seems reasonable.

    Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once
    Yes - conditional on lesser_minion's wording correction in post #469.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  4. - Top - End - #484
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
    How do you automatically know the spell is an illusion? Probably true for a prepared caster like a Wizard since he had to succeed in making the Spellcraft roll to learn it in the first place, but what about a Sorcerer who has no ranks in Spellcraft? He doesn't know his spell is an illusion. He knows he makes magic stuff happen.
    I believe the assumption made by the rules is that sorcerers do know what their own spells do and what their own spells are, even if they don't have spellcraft. Otherwise, you'd end up with difficulties -- imagine what happens when a sorcerer who doesn't know his illusions aren't real comes up against a pit or a chasm.

    "I know, I'll make a magical bridge over it!"
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-23 at 06:11 AM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  5. - Top - End - #485
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    I would say that Sorcerers presumably know the effects of their spells; they don't necessarily know anything about spell schools, subschools, types, etc. They know what happens when they cast a spell because they've done it and figured out what the effect is, but unless they have the appropriate skill ranks, they don't know the magical 'rules' behind how that spell is achieved.

    Therefore, a sorcerer could very plausibly know that he has a spell that does a bunch of different stuff depending on how he casts it, and if he's confident that the spell will work in the way he wants it to, then it does, but if he doubts his magic, then it fails. Someone with Spellcraft can identify that spell is Greater Shadow Evocation and know that when the sorcerer doubts his magic it means he's passing his will save, and when he's confident in his magic he's failing it.

    On the other hand, the Sorcerer will also know that when he casts this other spell he has, the stuff that appears is always fake. Not because he recognizes it as fake, but because he has never had that particular spell create something that's real. He doesn't know why, but he knows that's how it works. The guy with Spellcraft identifies him casting silent image.

    That's one (of what is undoubtedly many) possible interpretation(s) of why a caster might be able to believe in their own illusions.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  6. - Top - End - #486
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    (reply to Knowledge check weirdness over here)


    Quote Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
    Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization
    I fail to see the point of this one. As far as I can tell from reading the neutralize poison and delay poison descriptions, there is no interaction between those spells that would require this clarification: neutralize poison already does this.
    Wow, you're right; I was ... working from the wrong text of neutralize? *scratches head*
    Thanks for knocking off another redundant fix, then.

    Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs
    Uhh. Why? Some sort of explanation as to the reasoning behind these changes would be nice.
    Ah, sorry, you probably missed the original post on this and the others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  7. - Top - End - #487
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Ah, sorry, you probably missed the original post on this and the others.
    Ah, I see. But, not all of these are in error.

    Spellbook price at 15 GP: A single loose sheet of parchment would appear to be twice the size of a spellbook page. It costs 0.2 gp (2 silver). See 140 Complete Arcane where it breaks down spellbook price. Leather cover: 5 gp, parchment pages: 10 gp. Also for a similar item that follows a similar pattern (loose sheet being larger than book sheet), there is the Terepekkian Blank Book and Paper from 43 Ghostwalk. Paper is more expensive, but is not the material used in standard 15 gp spellbooks.

    Spiked Chain: That doesn't even work, considering a spiked chain is certainly shorter than 10 feet, and is not simply a straight length of chain (see illustration on 119 PHB for an example). Also, removing the spikes wouldn't exactly be a simple matter. How do you 'remove spikes' when the spikes aren't an add-on, but part of the forging of the chain?

    Flasks, ladders, and free items I agree with there, though.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  8. - Top - End - #488
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
    Spellbook price at 15 GP: A single loose sheet of parchment would appear to be twice the size of a spellbook page. It costs 0.2 gp (2 silver). See 140 Complete Arcane where it breaks down spellbook price. Leather cover: 5 gp, parchment pages: 10 gp. Also for a similar item that follows a similar pattern (loose sheet being larger than book sheet), there is the Terepekkian Blank Book and Paper from 43 Ghostwalk. Paper is more expensive, but is not the material used in standard 15 gp spellbooks.
    OK, I can accept this explanation, although I find the idea of using anything but the highest-quality paper in a spellbook, of all things, to be a little odd. Maybe spell inscription inks would be cheaper if they just had acid-free!

    Spiked Chain: That doesn't even work, considering a spiked chain is certainly shorter than 10 feet, and is not simply a straight length of chain (see illustration on 119 PHB for an example). Also, removing the spikes wouldn't exactly be a simple matter. How do you 'remove spikes' when the spikes aren't an add-on, but part of the forging of the chain?
    Here, though, the proposed hack is more an absurdity to demonstrate that a spiked chain weapon probably shouldn't be cheaper than a regular chain, whether or not you can actually convert them in the suggested manner. I don't know a lot about forging chains by hand, but I do know enough to be fairly sure forging chains with extra spikes and hand-grips is more complex and more expensive, even if only by a little. So if they were priced the same, it be probably be OK, or if the weapon is more expensive, but cheaper? Not so much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  9. - Top - End - #489
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

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

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

    • 49 Agree
    • 51 Agree
    • 52 Disagree. This should only apply to creatures that are normally allowed to take class levels. Even then, I'm not 100% sure it should apply in all cases.
    • 53 Agree
    • 57 Disagree. Magic should only do what it says on the tin.
    • 61 Agree
    • 62 RAW says it's a move action. This item can't decide whether it's re-stating that or if it wants this to be a free action. tbh the real fix is to abolish spell components, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-06-24 at 01:35 AM.
    Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
    Blue is strictly for emphasis.
    And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

    Avatar by The Succubus

  10. - Top - End - #490
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Jopustopin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Gender
    Male

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

    Has everyone read the rules FAQ on tower shields?
    I'll be back September 1, 2013 November 1, 2013 to infinity and beyond!

    If I could play dungeons & dragons with only four books: MM I, DMG, PHB, & ToB
    Dragon Shaman Handbook.

  11. - Top - End - #491
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    [LIST]52 Disagree. This should only apply to creatures that are normally allowed to take class levels. Even then, I'm not 100% sure it should apply in all cases.
    Improving Monsters strongly suggests that any creature with at least 3 Int can take class levels. Can you point to a specific example of a 1HD creature with 3 or more Int that should definitely not be allowed to trade in its racial HD?

    57 Disagree. Magic should only do what it says on the tin.
    I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what you mean by this. Do you mean that neutralize poison shouldn't work properly with delay poison? (In any case, the point is moot; RAW-wise, 3.5's neutralize poison doesn't work that way anyway, and the rule is only useful for PF.)

    62 RAW says it's a move action. This item can't decide whether it's re-stating that or if it wants this to be a free action. tbh the real fix is to abolish spell components, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
    Actions in Combat lists it as a free action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jopustopin View Post
    Has everyone read the rules FAQ on tower shields?
    Interesting. It appears to be wedging in a partial facing system, which I still think is a bad idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  12. - Top - End - #492
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Jopustopin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Interesting. It appears to be wedging in a partial facing system, which I still think is a bad idea.
    Right, but it's common sense... that's what a tower shield would do.
    I'll be back September 1, 2013 November 1, 2013 to infinity and beyond!

    If I could play dungeons & dragons with only four books: MM I, DMG, PHB, & ToB
    Dragon Shaman Handbook.

  13. - Top - End - #493
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jopustopin View Post
    Right, but it's common sense... that's what a tower shield would do.
    It's not, however, common sense to designate a "Facing" sub-rule into a system that has no other instances of "Facing".
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  14. - Top - End - #494
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    It's not, however, common sense to designate a "Facing" sub-rule into a system that has no other instances of "Facing".
    Pretty much this. Someone much earlier in the thread (Tyndmyr?) mentioned that while they use a facing-lite system, they wouldn't really consider it a common sense solution, given the rules as they stand. I'd tend to agree with this; however, a compromise could perhaps be developed that would mesh better with the rest of the system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  15. - Top - End - #495
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    I'm wondering what to do about something that JaronK pointed out (I don't have a link to the post) a while back. By RAW, a 1st-level wizard receives, free of charge, a spellbook with a resale value of at least 1,500 gp.

    How useful this is depends on the game: there are obviously cases like low-level one-shots where this would totally wreck things (guard dogs are available in vast numbers with that much money, and each is individually more powerful than a 1st-level fighter). I don't think anyone's done an analysis to determine how likely it is to be a problem in a longer game.

    One solution would be to start the wizard off owing 2,000 gp in student loans, but that would be difficult to phrase naturally without turning it into a potential railroading tool. Can anyone think of something better?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    • 62 RAW says it's a move action. This item can't decide whether it's re-stating that or if it wants this to be a free action. tbh the real fix is to abolish spell components, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
    Actually, the rules say it's a free action unless you're grappled (in which case it's a full-round action). The point of the patch is to make it a non-action: you can do it for free as part of the action used to cast a spell.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-25 at 01:36 PM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  16. - Top - End - #496
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Kazyan, I don't really see there being separate issues or concerns about these two dragon types...I'll resplit them if there seems to be an issue, but for now I'll keep 'em as one.

    Yorae, welcome to the discussion. It's becomming an incresingly more daunting prospect to fill them all in from the beginning, so thanks for putting in the time and trouble.
    I've not recorded a vote for you on Rule 010, 034, 039, 049, 059. I'm not able to get a clear statement of intent from you that doesn't involve a change to an established rule. Feel free to debate it, and clarify your stance on these issues.

    I would point out (as I have before) regarding rule 015...even objects get a will save.
    Regarding Rule 034...it's the combination of the A&E rules and the MiC rules that count clothing as equivalent to Bracers of Armor (ie, providing an Armor bonus, not an Enhancement bonus TO armor).


    I'm not sure where I'm going to fall on 056...haven't weighed in because my personal preference is for adjucating considerable circumstance bonuses in these situations (reducing it to a 9+ doesn't help with multiple HD farm animals such as a heavy horse or a cow)...but I'm not ready to go against it yet either, as it does make a certain amount of sense and is an easy quick-fix to a good portion of the problem.

    The one other thing I'd note (see Pixie vs Horse) is that it's one thing to make the basic check (yep, that's what it is) and another to get their full bio. It's DC 13 to tell what a Heavy horse is...but that tells you everything you ever need to know about one. It's a DC 13 check to call a pixie a pixie, but there's other 'specific abilities/weaknesses' that you'd have to mine to really have all the relevant data.
    The more exotic something is, the more there is to know about it...and that part of the knowledge check rules the system gets right.

    With that thought in mind, I'm going to toss another new rule onto the pile myself:

    Rule 065: I Met Your Little Brother Once

    If you can make a successful knowledge check (PHB 78) to identify a fundamentally similar creature's traits, you can successfully identify all of the common traits between that creature and the one you are observing. The exact defition of fundamentally similar may vary by DM, but at its most basic level, it includes all versions of a creature that advances by ages or age categories (for example, the True Dragons MM68-88, Neogi Spawn -> Adult Neogi MM2 159), all creatures who are called the same thing with only a size category distinction (for example, the Elementals MM 95-101), and any creature that is described as being a "Lesser" or "Greater" version of another (Stone Golem -> Greater Stone Golem, Fihyr -> Great Fihyr (MM2 100)).
    In effect, this means that if you can tell that a Wyrmling Red Dragon breathes fire and is cold-vulnerable, you can presume the same about the Old Red Dragon you're looking at...but you wouldn't know about its Crush attack or DR, since it hasn't gotten those yet. If you can identify a small earth elemental well enough, you can tell that a greater earth elemental is also going to have earth mastery and push, but not DR (since the small elemental doesn't have that ability in common). A check good enough to identify that a Large Earth Elemental has DR would identify the greater elemental's DR type (-), but not the amount (10/- as opposed to a large elemental's 5/-).



    Rule 015 is now disapproved
    Rule 055 is now disapproved
    Rule 056 is now disapproved
    Rule 057 is now disapproved
    Rule 058 is now disapproved
    Rule 059 is now disapproved
    Please note rule 062 has been reworded.
    Rule 063 has been added and is approved
    Rule 064A&B have been added and are approved
    Rule 065 has been added and is approved
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  17. - Top - End - #497
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    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.
    Revisiting this a bit: initially I assumed you were referring to 056 only, but since you haven't revised your votes for any of the others, I'm a little more puzzled. 055 is fairly straightforward, and reasonably correct. 058 is also rather simple, and there are no "hopelessly borked" rules applicable; I can't figure out what you object to in 059 at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    I'm wondering what to do about something that JaronK pointed out (I don't have a link to the post) a while back. By RAW, a 1st-level wizard receives, free of charge, a spellbook with a resale value of at least 1,500 gp.

    How useful this is depends on the game: there are obviously cases like low-level one-shots where this would totally wreck things (guard dogs are available in vast numbers with that much money, and each is individually more powerful than a 1st-level fighter). I don't think anyone's done an analysis to determine how likely it is to be a problem in a longer game.

    One solution would be to start the wizard off owing 2,000 gp in student loans, but that would be difficult to phrase naturally without turning it into a potential railroading tool. Can anyone think of something better?
    Hmm, this is quite a problem. You could remove the free auto-access to all cantrips ever, and require the wizard to select, say, 10 of them (or however many).

    My instinct, though, for what it's worth, is to start a new thread to hash out the ramifications of all this before pulling it back in here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    I'm not sure where I'm going to fall on 056...haven't weighed in because my personal preference is for adjucating considerable circumstance bonuses in these situations (reducing it to a 9+ doesn't help with multiple HD farm animals such as a heavy horse or a cow)...but I'm not ready to go against it yet either, as it does make a certain amount of sense and is an easy quick-fix to a good portion of the problem.
    Yeah, I'd like as much contribution to the Knowledge check brainstorming as possible, to see if there's a better way to do this. Just a note, though: circumstance bonuses technically don't help 0-rank characters any, because they can't make the checks in the first place. (A circumstance drop to the DC works, of course.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  18. - Top - End - #498
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

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

    I vote nay on 28, all versions of 38, both versions of 54, and both versions of 54. I vote aye on the others up for voting.

    While most of these do make sense, there are some issues I have with some.
    28: I see no reason why it should be so. Maybe if it specified, say, a minimum duration of the effect (you can't train enough to be able to learn, say, Two-Weapon Fighting if you can't qualify for it at least X hours a day), but as-is, no. Simply having a cleric in the party would let you train huge chains of feats you could only train for a few minutes a day and would almost never use. It's nonsensical.
    38: If such a situation comes up, it should be allowed. The human(oid) brain is great at self-deception; if it can think its arm is someone else's, it can believe its own illusions.
    54: This is basically the same as 38, and I reject it on the same grounds.

    I would like to propose an alternate version of #28, as well.
    Rule 028B: Qualifiable or Disqualified
    If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means for a minimum of 6 hours per day, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
    (Addition mine, the number chosen was an average of my two gut feelings [4 and 8]. If you think some other number would be better, feel free to change it.)
    Quotes, and more
    Homebrew; see also Contests
    Avatar by Recaiden.

  19. - Top - End - #499
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    rockdeworld's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stillwater
    Gender
    Male

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

    Can you change "see rule 34" to, perhaps, "see rule 034"? It might just be me, but when I saw that the first two times, I thought "what does squick have to do with armor?" Plus, 034 is how you have it labeled.

    Also, I'm for 65, and against 64A&B, because it makes martial characters worse, and using a skill at -20 to duplicate a weak feat/situational combat ability doesn't seem bad to me.
    Last edited by rockdeworld; 2013-01-16 at 11:27 PM.
    Avatar by Korafox and Loadus.

  20. - Top - End - #500
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Since True Dragons got brought up (and gets brought up a bit, and thus should be covered), I'll say that by RAW a True Dragon is any dragon with 12 age categories (Wyrmling to Great Wyrm) that gets stronger as it gets older (Draconomicon sidebar). I think it's pretty clear that Kobolds in Races of the Dragon were supposed to count as True Dragons if they took Dragonwrought based on that book... they just didn't realize what would happen if you did that. So I'd add in the following rules relevant to Kobold shenanigans:

    1) No creature may ever take a level in a class without having taken all the earlier levels in that class (applies to Dragonblood Sorcerer and Dragonblood Cleric substitutions... currently because True Dragons bypass all prerequisites for taking any class or feat that requires being Dragonblooded, you can just take Dragonblood Cleric 9 as your first Cleric level, which grants +6 BAB and huge saves (but not improved casting).

    2) Sovereign Archetypes may only be taken by True Dragons with dragon HD (Kobolds don't have those, so this solves that particular issue).

    3) The Advanced Dragons rules ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monst...onAdvanced.htm ) only apply to racial hit dice gained, not class hit dice. This again removes Kobolds from those rules, in addition to getting rid of any "Kobolds who gain class levels also gain huge dragon bonuses" issues.

    There. Now Dragonwrought Kobolds can still officially be True Dragons and thus feel very important, and yet don't get the really crazy powers that they were almost certainly never intended to have. But it's still a strong feat (gain various Dragon racial attributes, +3 to all mental stats, take Improved Dragon Wings without needing the prerequisite Dragon Wings feat). It's just not stupidly powerful anymore.

    JaronK

  21. - Top - End - #501
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    Since True Dragons got brought up (and gets brought up a bit, and thus should be covered), I'll say that by RAW a True Dragon is any dragon with 12 age categories (Wyrmling to Great Wyrm) that gets stronger as it gets older (Draconomicon sidebar). I think it's pretty clear that Kobolds in Races of the Dragon were supposed to count as True Dragons if they took Dragonwrought based on that book... they just didn't realize what would happen if you did that. So I'd add in the following rules relevant to Kobold shenanigans:

    1) No creature may ever take a level in a class without having taken all the earlier levels in that class (applies to Dragonblood Sorcerer and Dragonblood Cleric substitutions... currently because True Dragons bypass all prerequisites for taking any class or feat that requires being Dragonblooded, you can just take Dragonblood Cleric 9 as your first Cleric level, which grants +6 BAB and huge saves (but not improved casting).

    2) Sovereign Archetypes may only be taken by True Dragons with dragon HD (Kobolds don't have those, so this solves that particular issue).

    3) The Advanced Dragons rules ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monst...onAdvanced.htm ) only apply to racial hit dice gained, not class hit dice. This again removes Kobolds from those rules, in addition to getting rid of any "Kobolds who gain class levels also gain huge dragon bonuses" issues.

    There. Now Dragonwrought Kobolds can still officially be True Dragons and thus feel very important, and yet don't get the really crazy powers that they were almost certainly never intended to have. But it's still a strong feat (gain various Dragon racial attributes, +3 to all mental stats, take Improved Dragon Wings without needing the prerequisite Dragon Wings feat). It's just not stupidly powerful anymore.

    JaronK
    Or in fitting with the thread, you can simply read "Advances through age category" in the MM, as requiring "Advancement: By age category" for true dragons preventing Kobolds from being true dragons entirely, and curtailing every single problem relating to them being dragons without banning the book, the feat, and the race.

  22. - Top - End - #502
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Or in fitting with the thread, you can simply read "Advances through age category" in the MM, as requiring "Advancement: By age category" for true dragons preventing Kobolds from being true dragons entirely, and curtailing every single problem relating to them being dragons without banning the book, the feat, and the race.
    The problem there is that in Races of the Dragon it's actually pretty clear that Dragonwrought really was supposed to make them True Dragons. All the mythology described in that book hints at it. So making them not count just screws that up and thus isn't common sense.

    Also, your interpretation leads to logical impossibilities, because what Draconomicon actually says is that dragons that get more powerful by aging are True Dragons, while dragons that don't have age categories are not. Kobolds do get more powerful simply by aging and have age categories, so the ruling you suggest would make them both True and not True at the same time.

    Furthermore, just denying Kobolds those oddball rules doesn't fix the problem that still exists for standard True Dragons... a Wyrmling Steel Dragon could still take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 as their first level for the huge BAB and save boost, while a Great Wyrm dragon who takes three levels in any class still gains a virtual age category for it.

    The suggestions I made don't create logical impossibilities and preserve the intent of the feat while getting rid of the silly bits for both Kobolds and other True Dragons... which *is* common sense.

    JaronK

  23. - Top - End - #503
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    The problem there is that in Races of the Dragon it's actually pretty clear that Dragonwrought really was supposed to make them True Dragons. All the mythology described in that book hints at it. So making them not count just screws that up and thus isn't common sense.

    Also, your interpretation leads to logical impossibilities, because what Draconomicon actually says is that dragons that get more powerful by aging are True Dragons, while dragons that don't have age categories are not. Kobolds do get more powerful simply by aging and have age categories, so the ruling you suggest would make them both True and not True at the same time.

    Furthermore, just denying Kobolds those oddball rules doesn't fix the problem that still exists for standard True Dragons... a Wyrmling Steel Dragon could still take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 as their first level for the huge BAB and save boost, while a Great Wyrm dragon who takes three levels in any class still gains a virtual age category for it.

    The suggestions I made don't create logical impossibilities and preserve the intent of the feat while getting rid of the silly bits for both Kobolds and other True Dragons... which *is* common sense.

    JaronK
    I would argue that Kobolds do not get more powerful with age, aging lowers physical stats while increasing mental stats, true dragons see an increase to all stats, and no decreases.

    I think a delineation based on advancement methods (Dragons advance by hitdice, kobolds advance by character class), or the presence of actual Dragon Hitdice would be more appropriate.

    I would also dispute that any dragon steel or otherwise qualifies for dragonblood substitution levels. First off, the requirement is a Dragonblood supbtype, something a dragon lacks. Second the requirement levels of Sorcerer. Casting as a sorcerer of X is not the same thing as being a sorcerer of X level

    To take a dragonblood sorcerer substitution level, a character must have the dragonblood subtype and be about to take his 1st, 4th, or 7th level of sorcerer.
    As a Dragon you have no levels of Sorcerer, or any other class, you have dragon HD. As a Dragon you lack the dragonblood subtype.

    Finally the idea that you gain the listed bonus is silly, its a substitution level, you take it instead of the listed level. It replaces the listed level from its class, its not a new class. So sorc substitution 7;

    7th +3 +2 +2 +5
    Compared to taking your actual seventh level of Sorcerer...

    7th +3 +2 +2 +5
    Why, its the Standard BAB and Saves progression for the class. Surprise.

    Dragons also do not gain virtual age catagories for levels in other classes, the Draconomicon has a lengthy (too lengthy to copy here) example on the dragons as PC's section. Dragons advance by Dragon HD and age, you are simply required to spend levels to keep up with your Dragons age. Taking levels in another class merely increases your overall ECL.

    Finally the ELH (and SRD) say that dragons gain virtual age categories for every three hitdice, but only after they've achieved Great Wyrm Status. Again that keyword, Hitdice. Dragons advance by Hitdice, Dragon HD. They get their own. Taking levels of another class will indeed provide you with hitdice, but the wrong kind. You must take the Monstrous HD to get the benefit of them. Age Category advancements are a trait of Dragon HD only.
    Last edited by TypoNinja; 2013-01-17 at 05:19 AM.
    A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"

  24. - Top - End - #504
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    I would argue that Kobolds do not get more powerful with age, aging lowers physical stats while increasing mental stats, true dragons see an increase to all stats, and no decreases.
    The Dragonwrought feat explicitly changes that for Kobolds. They don't lower their physical stats. They only raise their mental ones. That's in Races of the Dragon in the Kobold aging table. So, yes, they do get more powerful as they age (there's even a section of the DMG that straight up says "more powerful characters" are characters with higher stats).

    I think a delineation based on advancement methods (Dragons advance by hitdice, kobolds advance by character class), or the presence of actual Dragon Hitdice would be more appropriate.
    Again, I think if you make the abilities you don't want Kobolds to have require Dragon Hit Dice it solves the problem better, because common sense really does say that Kobolds should count as True Dragons based on what Races of the Dragon is saying.

    I would also dispute that any dragon steel or otherwise qualifies for dragonblood substitution levels. First off, the requirement is a Dragonblood supbtype, something a dragon lacks. Second the requirement levels of Sorcerer. Casting as a sorcerer of X is not the same thing as being a sorcerer of X level
    It's a special rule for all True Dragons... if anything requires the Dragonblood subtype, a True Dragon automatically qualifies for that thing and ignores all prerequisites.

    And it's not that True Dragons have Sorcerer levels, it's that Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 requires Sorcerer 6 and being Dragonblooded, but a True Dragon gets to ignore the Sorcerer 6 part of the requirement because he's a True Dragon and Dragonblooded was one of the requirements.

    As a Dragon you have no levels of Sorcerer, or any other class, you have dragon HD. As a Dragon you lack the dragonblood subtype.
    I think you need to review Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon and maybe Dragon Magic before trying to figure out what's intended and sensible here. This statement is clearly wrong.

    Finally the idea that you gain the listed bonus is silly, its a substitution level, you take it instead of the listed level. It replaces the listed level from its class, its not a new class. So sorc substitution 7;
    Right. Let me break this down for you.

    Any True Dragon can always take anything (feat, class level, etc) that requires the Dragonblood subtype, ignoring all prerequisites... they automatically qualify. Taking Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 requires being Sorcerer 6 and being Dragonblooded. Since True Dragons ignore the normal prerequisites, they can just take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 despite never having taken any other Sorcerer levels. Now, because your Sorcerer casting is based on the number of Sorcerer levels you have, this only gives them the usual one level increase in Sorcerer casting, so it's not insane. But because BAB and saves are a lookup table, your BAB and saves are suddenly set to the value that a Sorcerer 7 would normally have... namely +3 BAB, +5 Wil, +2 For, +2 Ref. See how that worked?

    Finally the ELH (and SRD) say that dragons gain virtual age categories for every three hitdice, but only after they've achieved Great Wyrm Status. Again that keyword, Hitdice. Dragons advance by Hitdice, Dragon HD. They get their own. Taking levels of another class will indeed provide you with hitdice, but the wrong kind. You must take the Monstrous HD to get the benefit of them. Age Category advancements are a trait of Dragon HD only.
    I've bolded the problem. The Advanced Dragon rules assume that Dragons advance by racial hit dice, but actually they advance by racial hit dice or class based hit dice. There's even plenty of True Dragon classes. And nothing in the Advanced Dragon rules specify what kind of hit dice it should be (it ought to be racial hit dice, but as written class hit dice would also count). At no point does it say "you must take the monsterous HD to get the benefit of them." That's why my rules correction was to make that explicit. Age Category advancements should be a trait of dragon HD only, but as written they're not. So, if we change it to a common sense thing, we just explicitly state that.

    JaronK

  25. - Top - End - #505
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    I'd missed the change to kobolds, so fine you've got me on that one, however..

    Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes,
    racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require
    the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that
    have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale,
    kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the
    dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.
    If you are taking that to mean they can take anything, and ignore all pre-requisites, I still dispute that, a Dragon satisfies the dragonblooded pre-requisite, but still needs to meet any others. As this entry lacks the magic phrase "even if he does not have the normal prerequisites"

    Dragons count as Dragonblooded, if they ever need to, which is obvious because Dragonblooded it self is about being treated as a Dragon.

    Notice how gaining the Dragon Type, loses you the Dragonblood Subtype? Its a clear indication the two are redundant, One you actually are a Dragon, the other you count as a Dragon. This rule is simply providing the equivalency between being a dragon and being dragonblooded.

    It also still doesn't address the fact that substitution levels are not a PrC. You don't just "pick up" substitution levels. They replace the listed level in a core class. Its right there in the name. Substitution.

    I feel like you totally missed my point on HD as well, but, since I really don't have anything more I can add to that, I'll just let it stand.
    A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"

  26. - Top - End - #506
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Tar Palantir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    I feel like you totally missed my point on HD as well, but, since I really don't have anything more I can add to that, I'll just let it stand.
    Hit Dice is the general term covering both racial hit dice and those gained from class levels. Epic dragon advancement just says "Hit Dice", the generic term, not racial hit dice, as it probably should.
    Thanks to Thormag for my Legion avatar.

    My Brute

    My Homebrew

  27. - Top - End - #507
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    If you are taking that to mean they can take anything, and ignore all pre-requisites, I still dispute that, a Dragon satisfies the dragonblooded pre-requisite, but still needs to meet any others. As this entry lacks the magic phrase "even if he does not have the normal prerequisites"
    The issue is that it's "Dragons automatically qualify" not "the Dragon type also counts as dragonblooded for purposes of qualifying for" as it should read. Yes, it's very likely that's what they intended (hence changing the common sense reading).

    With that said, it makes sense that Dragons might be able to take Improved Dragon Wings without the prerequisite feat, so maybe this is what they meant. There's no other abuse for the auto qualification thing except the substitution levels.

    It also still doesn't address the fact that substitution levels are not a PrC. You don't just "pick up" substitution levels. They replace the listed level in a core class. Its right there in the name. Substitution.
    They're class levels, not PrCs. But "Dragons automatically qualify for any classes" is right there in the rule, hence the issue.

    I feel like you totally missed my point on HD as well, but, since I really don't have anything more I can add to that, I'll just let it stand.
    You seem to think that HD means racial hit dice (which is what it should have meant there). But it applies to class hit dice too, which is the problem. Hence, the advanced dragon rules should refer to racial hit dice, not hit dice.

    JaronK

  28. - Top - End - #508
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    The problem there is that in Races of the Dragon it's actually pretty clear that Dragonwrought really was supposed to make them True Dragons. All the mythology described in that book hints at it. So making them not count just screws that up and thus isn't common sense.
    Does it, anywhere in the book, state anything factual about the status of kobold's dragonness? Because that's also the book that lists all true dragons at the time of it's printing, Dragonwrought Kobolds don't appear on this list. So no, they weren't.

    Also, your interpretation leads to logical impossibilities, because what Draconomicon actually says is that dragons that get more powerful by aging are True Dragons, while dragons that don't have age categories are not. Kobolds do get more powerful simply by aging and have age categories, so the ruling you suggest would make them both True and not True at the same time.
    Grow
    More (also additional, further, and greater for context)
    Powerful

    In what way do Kobolds, through the process of growing, accumulate power?

    They gain some adjustments to mental stats and don't suffer any penalties to physical stats right?

    In what way do True Dragons, through the process of growing, accumulate power?

    They gain additional HD, increasing size, stats, spellcasting prowress, feats, and essentially everything else related to a common sense reading of the statement "Grow more powerful with age" within the context of the rules.

    So nope, still don't qualify.

    Furthermore, just denying Kobolds those oddball rules doesn't fix the problem that still exists for standard True Dragons... a Wyrmling Steel Dragon could still take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 as their first level for the huge BAB and save boost, while a Great Wyrm dragon who takes three levels in any class still gains a virtual age category for it.
    Those don't sound like problems in the first place. Those sound like the flimsy logic of Theoretical Optimization at work.

    The suggestions I made don't create logical impossibilities and preserve the intent of the feat while getting rid of the silly bits for both Kobolds and other True Dragons... which *is* common sense.
    If we want to play the "No True Scotsman" fallacy game, then common sense would just be banning Kobolds, and the Dragonomicon wholesale, and not having any problems related ever being relevant for anything, ever.

  29. - Top - End - #509
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    The issue is that it's "Dragons automatically qualify" not "the Dragon type also counts as dragonblooded for purposes of qualifying for" as it should read. Yes, it's very likely that's what they intended (hence changing the common sense reading).

    With that said, it makes sense that Dragons might be able to take Improved Dragon Wings without the prerequisite feat, so maybe this is what they meant. There's no other abuse for the auto qualification thing except the substitution levels.



    They're class levels, not PrCs. But "Dragons automatically qualify for any classes" is right there in the rule, hence the issue.



    You seem to think that HD means racial hit dice (which is what it should have meant there). But it applies to class hit dice too, which is the problem. Hence, the advanced dragon rules should refer to racial hit dice, not hit dice.

    JaronK
    I feel like these are exceptionally flimsy attempts at interpreting the rules to the most outrageous means possible, even by the extremely liberal TO standards of these boards.

    I'm gonna paste the entire section of the sidebar, hopefully its not considered too much, but I think the context is important in this case.

    DRAGONBLOOD SUBTYPE
    If a race possesses the dragonblood subtype, it has a strong
    affinity to dragons—which means that spells, effects, powers,
    and abilities that affect or target dragons also affect it. The subtype
    qualifies a creature to use magic items normally only usable
    by dragons, and qualifies the creature to take feats that have the
    subtype as a prerequisite. The dragonblood subtype also makes
    creatures subject to harmful effects that affect dragons.
    The dragonblood subtype does not confer the dragon type
    or any traits associated with that type. For instance, it does not
    give a creature frightful presence.
    Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes,
    racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require
    the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that
    have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale,
    kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the
    dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.
    Notice how these rules aren't a chapter header, or standing alone? The "automatically qualify" language isnt to be taken out of context, its contained within a sidebar discussing the dragonblood subtype. This sidebar then taken in context is discussing rules surrounding the subtype specifically, therefor automatic qualification refers only to this subtype.

    Even if a dragon automatically qualifies, under this extremely shady interpenetration of a sidebar, he still can't just take a substitution level. I hate resorting to dictionaries, but it this case it seems required.
    Noun
    The action of replacing someone or something with another person or thing.
    I don't care if you think he meets the prerequisites or not, the functioning mechanics of a substitution level is that you take it instead of the listed level in your core class. A dragon lacks that level in the core class.

    Of course it means racial hit die, again take the rules in context. HD to virtual age catagories for Epic Dragons is right there in the Advanced Dragons section, not advanced constructions or advanced undead.

    Dragon MM entries indicate they advance by HD, when you see that entry do you think "well, lets give him outsider HD instead but still claim the bonuses from Dragon HD."?

    When a monster is advanced by HD, he's advanced by his racial HD, your magical beast gets more magical beast HD, not construct HD, undead advance by undead HD, not animal HD. Dragons advance by Dragon HD, its right there in the name. Increasing age categories is a benefit of Dragon HD, no other monstrous HD grants that benefit.

    Furthermore, the Epic rules for advancing dragons specifically references it as an expansion for the rules on HD advancement from the MM, and those rules do show that mosters advance by their own hitdice.
    A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"

  30. - Top - End - #510
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    See, what you're doing there is applying common sense to the rules. But you're assuming the rules will be read in the common sense way, while I believe the very point of this thread is to write down what the common sense rules should say so that they're always interpreted in the common sense way.

    Otherwise there's no point in this thread... for each rule, you could just say "common sense dictates people will read this rule right, so we don't need to do anything."

    To be clear, every interpretation I've stated here (except some of the technical bits about why Kobolds count as True Dragons) is something I've heard from multiple other players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful
    Does it, anywhere in the book, state anything factual about the status of kobold's dragonness? Because that's also the book that lists all true dragons at the time of it's printing, Dragonwrought Kobolds don't appear on this list. So no, they weren't.
    Yes, yes it does. Races of the Dragon does this. Repeatedly. And No, Races of the Dragon does NOT list all true dragons at the time of printing. That was Draconomicon... which was printed long before Races of the Dragon (it's Races of the Dragon that created the Dragonwrought feat and gave Kobolds age categories and made them get stronger as they get older and all that).

    In what way do Kobolds, through the process of growing, accumulate power?
    Races of the Dragon made it so that Dragonwrought Kobolds gain stat boosts as they get older and take no aging penalties. And since the DMG explicitly states that characters with higher stats are more powerful, they clearly qualify.

    Seriously, it's not that hard to fix the issue. You just explicitly state that the automatically qualify language doesn't let you take Dragonblood substitution levels without taking the earlier levels, and you state that Sovereign Archetypes only apply to True Dragons with Dragon racial hit dice. Problem solved. It's really not that hard.

    JaronK

Posting Permissions

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