Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Dandria's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Verona
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - No. It makes sense, but I don't see it as something obvious.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Eh, not really.
    Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No.
    Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - No. Again, it makes perfect sense, but it's more of a trivial house rule than an interpretation.
    Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by T-O-E View Post
    "Killing is WRONG Celesto."
    "My God you're right"

    Awesome Professor Dandria avatar by Ceika, queen of the awesome.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.
    Bracers of armor +2 cost 4,000 gp (per the SRD)
    Chain shirt +2 costs 4,250 gp (likewise)

    Bracers are not double cost since they occupy a slot usable for defense.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Just to keep things tidied up, and because I think it's a reasonable measure, here's a minor amendment to the rules.

    Should a proposed rule reach the anti-thesis of approved (Only 20% for), it will be purged.






    JadePhoenix, I'd appreciate your reasoning behind those opinions.


    Darrin, both of your proposed clarifications to charging while mounted and ride-bys make sense to me. I've added, commented, and named them (hope you're ok with the rule names I used).

    Ashtagon, I'm not sure but what the current wording accomplishes the same thing on Rule 4...but your wording is clearer. As the result is the same, I'll keep the previous votes as-is, and adopt/adapt the wording you provided.

    I'd ask that the issue of simple weapons be taken up as a separate issue...feel free to propose it.


    Telonius, I completely agree...but please note that the number has shifted to #013.



    Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

    It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

    Keld Denar...in as rule #014

    prufock, can you give me a page # on that? If so, I'll remove it for already being an established rule.




    Please recheck numbers, since we've gotten some drift.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.
    Depends if Armor bonus counts as Combat affinity.
    Otherwise you are correct.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2011

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

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Yes
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - After all metamagic is applied, the spell level should not be less than the original level of the spell. I do not agree with outright restricting it to certain metamagic.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Yes
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Abstain
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Yes
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Yes
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yes
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Abstain
    Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No
    Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - Yes, although it must take up a slot that is not otherwise filled by something else (IE, you can't have a robe over armor and benefit from both, at least stat-wise)
    Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - I would adjust this to say that a prestige class's prerequisites and class features can never prevent you from taking advantage of any other feature of the class, nor prevent you from advancing in it (I'm specifically thinking of Ur-Priest, who has to not be able to cast divine spells in order to advance in the class, but by RAW this means he cannot cast his own spells).

    EDIT: Also, I agree with the "I'm not left-handed" one.
    Last edited by Namfuak; 2012-04-20 at 04:13 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Troll 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)

    4 - additional rewrite:

    Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.

    10 - Agree

    11 - Agree

    12 - Agree

    13 - Agree

    14 - Agree
    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

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

    It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

    Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
    Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

    The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

    Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


    Thus, I propose rule 15:

    Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-20 at 04:24 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

    It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:



    Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

    The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

    Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


    Thus, I propose rule 15:

    Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.
    I agree with this so long as there is some penalty to will saves while someone is unconscious. Maybe a -4 penalty?

    EDIT: In hindsight, I agree with Malachei that the penalty probably falls under a different purview in terms of ruling than his interpretation, so if it is to be included it should probably at the very least be separated in the main post.
    Last edited by Namfuak; 2012-04-20 at 04:39 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Howler Dagger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    R'lyeh
    Gender
    Male

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

    I support rules 3 and 8 and a -4 penalty in rule 15.
    Last edited by Howler Dagger; 2012-04-20 at 04:35 PM.
    Illud quod aeternitatem iacere potest non mortuus est, ac dis peregrinis etiam mors moriatur.

    D&D 3.5≠Pathfinder

    Typhon by Kaptainkrutch. Thanks to TylerB7 for the latin

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.

    EDIT:

    A commentary on clarification vs. changes:

    This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?

    My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".

    Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CDT
    Gender
    Male

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

    Approve
    001 (Drowning)
    004 (SUS & Monks)
    005 (Dead)
    006 (Unarmed Strikes), so long as herbivorous animals keep their "all natural weapons counted as secondary", which admittedly has nothing to do with proficiency.
    007 (Trample) Note, however, that wolves don't have an appropriate attack, which makes the name as given in the post a bit of a misnomer.
    013 (Dragon Disciple) Want to make a call on what happens when you lose prerequisites as well?

    Conditional
    012 (Clothing as armor) MIC page 234 allows deflection, armor, and natural armor bonuses in the body slot at normal price anyway. I say no unless you're going to allow anything with an armor bonus to get special abilities like Soulfire or whatever; I don't see a reason for clothing to be singled out from Bracers of Armor in this respect.
    014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

    Disapprove
    003 (Legacy & Bloodline Levels) Eh, as it stands, it's a bit far-reaching. I might support No prestige class with fewer than 10 levels may have its class features advanced beyond its maximum level, however, since that fits in nicely with the epic rules and doesn't cause problems with 10-level classes that don't have RAW epic advancement.
    008 (Draconic Sorcerers), unless you can find one of these feats that requires sorcerer levels and doesn't require burning an arcane spell. Not inclined to give wizards access to those even if they are dragontouched.
    010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

    Neutral
    002 (Thesis) I'm inclined to believe behavior on the reducers is as intended. If this is an exploit, I've never seen it used in a game. I'm not going to pass a judgment on it quite yet, though. EDIT > I would absolutely support errata that made it so that no spell could be reduced below its original level, or even that allowed only one metamagic to apply a net -1. <
    011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

    Ideas for Consideration
    I'm not going to give these "official" numbers, because I'm not sure what ones you even want to consider.

    S1 Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)
    S2 Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).
    S3 If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, 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.
    S4 The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).

    And, of course, the ever-dividing Aptitude:
    S5a 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. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)
    S5b The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)
    Last edited by Siosilvar; 2012-04-20 at 05:13 PM.
    Avatar some unholy combination of Winthur and Gato Muerto's ideas.

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zagan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007

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

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed. It make sense that you could reduce the level of a spell by apllying a metamagic feat to it.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - I would tend to agree but I'm not sure it belong in this thread.
    Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - It was apparently removed.
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? - Agreed
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? - Agreed
    Rule 012: Anything Can Be Armour - Agreed
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed - Agreed
    Latest homebrew: The Avatars of Magic, powerful monster each dedicated to ne school of magic.

    My homebrewer's Extended Signature
    My character :
    Spoiler
    Show

    Mirar, Bizarre human Focused Conjurer/Master specialist (summoning specialist)
    Xilef, shifter Druid 8//Barbarian 5/Weretouched master 3
    Other Character.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?

    Suggested Fix
    At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

    *Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.
    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 - #44
    Troll 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)

    Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.
    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

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CDT
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.
    They do. Double, in fact.
    Avatar some unholy combination of Winthur and Gato Muerto's ideas.

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I do need to point out something. There already is a feat that does what rule 8 proposes. Dragontouched, page 18 of dragon magic. Go read it up. What rule 8 does is it means that if you already HAVE the dragonblood subtype, then you don't need to burn a feat for something you already have.
    Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

    Ponytar by Dirtytabs

    Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    The Winter King's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    They do. Double, in fact.
    You'd think so but no they do not. The relevant text is in the armor proficiency feats.

    from the SRD
    Armor Proficiency (Light) [General] Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
    Medium and Heavy armor proficiency feats sre the same but apply to different classes.
    Whats more specific, a feat, the armor rules, or type descriptions because this also means all creatures are proficient with light armor because all creatures are characters even if only NPCs. This also goes for simple weapon proficiency.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Troll 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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    They do. Double, in fact.
    That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.
    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

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Keld Denar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by prufock View Post
    Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.
    No, see, this is the part I don't get. The TWFing rules supercede the Monk rules, IMO. The rules in the Monk class description only deal with your normal attack routines and you don't have an offhand no matter which hand you use. The TWFing rules then give you an offhand UAS, which is subject to all of the benefits and penalties of TWF, including the 1/2 +Str bonus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
    AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
    _________________________________
    A beholderís favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

    It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:



    Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

    The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

    Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


    Thus, I propose rule 15:

    Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.
    You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD on Spell Descriptions
    Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.
    This is clear, willing target is a special subset of targets and some spells restrict you to only this subset (like others restrict you to, say, constructs).
    Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
    If you are unconscious then you are willing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD on Saving Throws
    Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

    A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
    If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

    Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.
    Last edited by Emperor Tippy; 2012-04-20 at 06:58 PM.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CDT
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.
    I just checked my copy of the PHB. Swim skill, proficiency feats, armor section in equipment; it's there in all three places. d20SRD appears to be missing that text in the proficiency feats, which is strange. It's there in the other two, and I'm inclined to value the description of armor check penalties and the skill telling you what modifiers apply over the lack of text in the feats (being that lack of text does not preclude additions by other rules).

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

    Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.
    I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).
    Last edited by Siosilvar; 2012-04-20 at 07:33 PM.
    Avatar some unholy combination of Winthur and Gato Muerto's ideas.

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lapak View Post
    Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

    What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.
    Ah, I see. Wouldn't the feat just make more sense if the feat (and the Monk's unarmed strike damage) both calculated the number of steps that they increased damage by, which is actually what they do, instead of the "effective levels" of the class that progresses it? Monk's unarmed strike damage progresses by 2 + x/4 rounded down, where x is your level, and Superior Unarmed Strike progresses by 1+ x/4 rounded down. Worded that way, there should be an obvious way to state that your unarmed damage with the Monk increases by an additional step, such as "Monk levels stack with Superior Unarmed Strike for determining bonus damage steps at level 1, but overlap for the purposes of determining damage progression on subsequent levels". Or some other wording that is much, much less stupid. The result is that your Unarmed Strike progression if you have any levels in Monk becomes 3 + x/4 rounded down (which was the purpose of this feat as it was intended). None of this "effective Monk level" nonsense.

    In any case, my vote is now yes for 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

    It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?
    I think a rewording might be required, but I get what I did wrong - I read the ruling as "unless the feature's progression is explicitly made mention of, it doesn't advance", as in "unless a table spells out its epic level progression, it doesn't have one", which means that by default no class features advance unless there's an Epic Progression table, which only exists for SRD classes and prestige classes (meaning that, by default, anything not printed in an SRD-ready book doesn't have an epic level progression). Per my reading, the only base classes that would have an epic level progression at all would be the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Soulknife, and Wilder (since they have tables outlining their epic level progression that include class features), and the rest of the SRD (for epic or psionic feats only).

    Assuming that your rule simply refers to the scaling of class abilities that run on a fixed level progression (such as the Marshal's major aura bonus) and so on, as opposed to a blanket ban on everything not spelled out on a table, my vote for 3 becomes yes.

    Let it be known, however, that my vote for 12 follows my vote for 9 logically as a no. There is a difference between codpiece of armor +2 and a +2 codpiece, that being that the former actually does use the MIC enhancement guidelines for applying armor, natural armor and deflection bonii to unusual items (which doesn't change per this ruling either way), and the latter applies a new rule which allows you to treat a striped sweater as masterwork, and then enchant it as you would a chain shirt (which is changing), which means that you could have a +5 slick striped sweater of invulnerability, shadow, silent moves, acid resistance and arrow catching (using SRD enhancements only) because your striped sweater is technically now "armor". Congratulations: your striped sweater magically makes you Waldo (and also grants damage reduction and stuff).

    It gets even more absurd if you can wear clothing with your armor (and why wouldn't you wear at least undergarments to keep your armor from smelling bad?), because you now have a +5 armor of various enhancements for your actual Armor Class value, and a +1 speedo of various other enhancements for the things you couldn't tack onto your first armor without turning it epic.

    I'll vote on the others later.
    Homebrewiness!
    Base Classes: Blood Mage
    Prestige Classes: Trophy Hunter / Spellshatterer
    Miscellany: Permanency Support
    Resources:
    Alchemical Items/Special Materials List / E6 Magic Item List

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).
    Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

    If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

    Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CDT
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

    If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

    Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.
    The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

    I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.
    Avatar some unholy combination of Winthur and Gato Muerto's ideas.

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Darrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.
    I'm all for this, so long as we make it explicit in the combat rules that you can change between primary weapons on all your iterative attacks. Right now under Full Attack it says "you can strike with either weapon first", but doesn't specify that you can still switch on subsequent attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.
    Actually, I would like to include Pounce/Headlong Rush/Furious Charge into mounted charges (I like letting melee have nice things), and in fact I'd like to get rid of the "single melee attack" on mounted charges altogether (can't the rider just delay his action until after his mount moves?) but I felt that wasn't the original intent behind the mounted combat rules. But we do need to specify what happens when the rider has Pounce and his mount is charging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.
    You need to be able to charge past your target, yes... but oddly enough, while this requires the mount to charge, it can't actually get an attack if it continues to move away from the target.

    Technically, the Rules Compendium allows you to jump over "obstacles", so you could try Jumping over your target to continue moving in a straight line, but that would look silly. Also, the Rules Compendium never defined what an "obstacle" was, so there's no indication if allies or opponents count as an "obstacle".

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

    I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.
    No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

    When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

    The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Siosilvar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    CDT
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

    When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

    The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.
    "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

    Nothing in that states that a willing creature doesn't get a save. Forgoing your save is a different section of the text:

    "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

    I'm not going to argue RAW any further, and "common sense" could swing either way, so how about we let this thread do what it was designed to do and crowdsource it?
    Avatar some unholy combination of Winthur and Gato Muerto's ideas.

    Omnia Vincit Amor

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

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

    Seems like the confusion is people looking at "willing" in different way. Strictly looking at syntax, why are "forego a saving throw and willingly (adverb) accept a spell results" and "a willing (adjective) creature" being treated as the same thing? The former implies an action, something a creature has to make a choice to do; how would an unconcious creature make this choice?
    Last edited by georgie_leech; 2012-04-20 at 09:25 PM. Reason: grammar
    Quote Originally Posted by Alberic Strein View Post
    Aaaaaaand Georgie just won this whole thread.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Because you (and most people) misunderstand how targeting works in D&D.

    When you cast a spell it asks "Is this target X?" where X is whatever the spell is able to effect, say intelligent undead.

    With willing only spells it asks "Is this target willing (unconscious or choosing to forgo their save)?" and if the answer is yes then the spell works

    Will all other spells it asks, for example, "Is this target a creature?" If it get's a yes it then asks "Is this target immune to this spell, say [mind affecting]?" if it receives a no then it asks "Is this target willing?" if the answer is no then it gets a save.

    A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2011

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

    The main problem with the unconscious willing target argument is that there is no real way to apply common sense to it, since we don't actually know how mind-affecting spells work (do they change something about the conscious brain, or the unconscious one? If the former, it wouldn't work on unconscious targets since their conscious brain is turned off; if the latter, it would still work since their brain is still functioning, albeit at a lower level). So, it may be better to just drop it for the purposes of this thread.

    Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.

Posting Permissions

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