Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Firbolg 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 Namfuak View Post
    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.
    Nope, you can technically only forgo saves against spells and magical effects.
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Imagination Land
    Gender
    Male

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

    Considering that a helpless or paralyzed creature doesn't automatically fail a Reflex save, I don't think an unconscious person should automatically fail Will saves (or any other saving throw). From a game design perspective, it's not very fair to the player. Even magic items get to make saving throws.

    Personally, I don't see strength of will being in any way related to being conscious or unconscious. I think saving throws are designed to not require conscious effort. You don't consciously dodge a fireball or resist a poison, you do those things automatically without having to think about them, so I don't see why you'd need to consciously resist an enchantment.

    my 2cp
    Last edited by KillianHawkeye; 2012-04-20 at 10:09 PM.
    "Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers

    "What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix

    Quote Originally Posted by Krellen View Post
    Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Darrin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Gender
    Male

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

    This has to be addressed, because it's never mentioned in any of the rules, FAQs, AskSage, Custservs, absolutely nowhere in print:

    Rule 0??: If a natural weapon is occupied, such as wielding a manufactured weapon, holding an object, etc., then it can't make an attack as a natural weapon.

    (As of now, the rules for natural weapons say they do not interfere with your iterative attacks in any way... which implies if your claw is holding a sword, you can attack with the sword and still get your claw attack.)

    Rule 0??: There are two types of "slam" attacks. For creatures that have a humanoid shape or similar well-defined form, a "slam" attack is made with the arms or the nearest approximate appendages. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are larger than medium-size may have two slam attacks, one for each arm. If one or both arms is occupied (wielding an weapon, holding an object, etc.), then the creature loses the appropriate slam attack. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are medium-sized or smaller may have a single slam attack, but must have at least one unoccupied arm free to attack in order to use it. For creatures with no discernible anatomy or an amorphous form (oozes, some aberrations), they may have a single "body slam" attack which can be used without regard to any particular appendage, occupied or otherwise.

    (This would prevent a Warforged from using its slam if both arms were occupied... does that make sense? Or should Warforged two-handers still get an "elbow/kick" attack?)

  4. - Top - End - #64
    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)

    I think that your second reading was right. If a creature has arms, it makes slams with those arms. If you look at the stat blocks for any of the giants above hill, they all have slam attacks, but their full attack routines don't include their slams (unlike a marilith with her tail). A creature with pseudopods can't wield weapons, so they can't interfere with its slams. I think its established in the rules exactly as you described, just not explicitly stated.
    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.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    I find it rather amusing that you mention how hotly debated common sense is on the forums, then name the thread after common sense. That said, it's a good thread, and seeing how many people vote for which is a good indication of how well everyone sees the rules.

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes
    Approved, it is a common-sense fix.

    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier
    Approved, as metamagic reduction clearly seems to be intended to lower the costs of metamagic, not hand out "freebie" metamagic to spells.

    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels
    [Edit] Neutral for the time being.

    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike
    Neutral, as I am not familiar with the feat.

    Rule 005: Dead is Dead
    Approved, more common sense.

    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally
    Approved, because it takes care of several problems, and the few exceptions aren't really affected much. If the wizard wants to punch the ogre in the nose, proficiency or non is one of the least influencial factors.

    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves
    Approved, as not all mounts have hooves. "Appropriate natural weapon" works but is still up to interpretation, though.

    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage
    Neutral, as I am not familiar enough with the feat to judge.

    Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Padded armor isn't just jeans and a t-shirt; it is approximately as thick as a winter jacket. I can see what you were thinking, but a monk in padded armor would be restricted just like in leather armor.

    I would, however, approve of this rule with Gnome Twist-Cloth and Gnome Battle Cloak (both Races of Stone). Both of these items are specifically stated to be as flexible as standard clothing, and so work for your intended purposes. I would even go so far as to say that the monk/ninja/related classes would gain proficiency in both exotic armors, as they are thematically appropriate for the Tibetan Monk-astetic promoted by the class.


    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?
    Neutral; I will have to think about this before deciding that mounted charging is limited to only a standard attack. Also, bizarre rules interpretations with pounce (either on mount or rider).

    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?
    Approved. The wording seems awkward still, but the point gets across.

    Rule 012: Anything can be Armor
    Approved, as the Magical Vestments spell applying to clothing makes it clear that this isn't a problem.

    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox
    Approved for sanity's sake.

    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed
    Approved, this is technically the rules anyways. (You cannot attack off-hand when not TWF.)


    --
    And now, for the new recommendations:


    Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
    Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

    Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

    Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate
    Page 198 in the Player's Handbook (and elsewhere): Animate Dead and related spells do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when creating evil undead.

    Summon Undead and related spell do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when summoning evil undead.

    Logic: It kills most of the undead/alignment debates, and allows the spell to be more setting-specific. Please note that most undead created or summoned by the spells are evil by default, meaning the spells will end up being [Evil] by standard rules regardless.

    Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
    Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

    Logic: There is nothing evil about the spell, and it appears on at least one only-good spell list.

    Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
    From here: Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane lowers HP rather than increasing it for undead. The loss of HP may not be prevented or mitigated by any means.

    Logic: Undead being the best capable of surviving in positive energy is just silly. Awkward wording, I know, but "taking damage" is so easy to prevent or become immune to.

    Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
    For magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelated to attacking with the weapon, the bulk of the ammunition must be present to give the benefit.

    Logic: This is to prevent characters from buying +5 defending shuriken for 1440g, or ten manifester arrows for an additional 50 PP.

    Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No
    Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.

    Logic: There is no reason that the Swordsage would be unable to dodge just as well without light armor as with. The ability should not stack with a monk's ability, as well.
    Last edited by erikun; 2012-04-23 at 03:59 PM.
    Thank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
    The full set is here.
    Quote Originally Posted by darthbobcat View Post
    There are no bad ideas, just bad execution.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
    from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread



    A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
    original image

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    I think Tippy is purposefully taking a part out of the paragraph. The first sentence clearly says what the rule applies to: Spells that require willing targets.

    I think it is so obvious that I am surprised.

    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.
    This has nothing to do with forgoing a saving throw. This applies to the situation in which an unconscious creature is the target of a spell which requires a willing target.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy
    A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.
    The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.

    It is RAW.

    I think it is only debated because then mindrape can easier be used for all kinds of fu.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-21 at 01:53 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Firbolg 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
    I think Tippy is purposefully taking a part out of the paragraph. The first sentence clearly says what the rule applies to: Spells that require willing targets.

    I think it is so obvious that I am surprised.

    This has nothing to do with forgoing a saving throw. This applies to the situation in which an unconscious creature is the target of a spell which requires a willing target.
    No, that paragraph says that if you are unconscious then you are automatically willing.
    "Willing" is not a condition that applies only to spells that only work on willing targets. It's a condition that has nothing at all to do with the spell cast and everything to do with the creature; Does the creature want the spell to affect them? Then they are willing and the spell affects them without any save being needed, regardless of what the spell is. Is the creature unconscious? If so then they are automatically willing and the spell affects them without any save being needed.

    The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.
    Exactly the point. The condition "Unconscious" changes you to "willing".

    It is RAW.
    No, RAW is that any unconscious creature gets no save to resist any spell. It doesn't apply to anything else, only spells and magical effects.

    I think it is only debated because then mindrape can easier be used for all kinds of fu.
    Lot's of things can be used for all kinds of fun.

    Don't get knocked unconscious and then abandoned, you could wake up a different person.
    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.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Apr 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.
    In this case, the next time you have a teammate who is unconscious, you cant dimension door away with them.

    The next time you capture someone, you can't just capture them, you have to kill them before you can attempt to teleport away.

    The next time you want to heal someone who is unconscious, they have to make a will save, because 'by default', they are unwilling.

    Keep in mind that 'willing' and 'unwilling' apply to all spells, not just negative ones.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

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

    Sorry if somebody has already said this (I've just started reading this thread and was too lazy to finish before posting this), but you may want to include a proviso for polymorph and such, because I think that while it's perfectly reasonable to allow anybody to throw a punch, it may not be reasonable for a polymorphed commoner to be able to use a dragon's bite just a well as a bona fide dragon could.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomasinx View Post
    In this case, the next time you have a teammate who is unconscious, you cant dimension door away with them.

    The next time you capture someone, you can't just capture them, you have to kill them before you can attempt to teleport away.

    The next time you want to heal someone who is unconscious, they have to make a will save, because 'by default', they are unwilling.

    Keep in mind that 'willing' and 'unwilling' apply to all spells, not just negative ones.
    Not true, because dimension door and teleport affect willing creatures, and hence, the rule on willing targets applies. The save entry is for objects.

    Also, harmless spells are an exception to the default saving throw rule, according to RAW:

    (harmless)
    The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
    So this is what the RAW say:
    • A creature is unwiling by default, because the rules say you can, as a free action out of turn, become willing
    • There are spells that affect willing creatures only, and in this case, an unconscious creature is considered willing
    • There are spells that are harmless, in which case the default is willing, but you can still shift to unwilling if you want

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    How about the issue that any resistance to fire provides complete immunity to lava?

    Maybe it would make more sense for that to be removed- if lava does ordinary fire damage, resistance should work as per ordinary fire.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Apr 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Not true, because dimension door and teleport affect willing creatures, and hence, the rule on willing targets applies. The save entry is for objects.

    Also, harmless spells are an exception to the default saving throw rule, according to RAW:

    So this is what the RAW say:
    • A creature is unwiling by default, because the rules say you can, as a free action out of turn, become willing
    • There are spells that affect willing creatures only, and in this case, an unconscious creature is considered willing
    • There are spells that are harmless, in which case the default is willing, but you can still shift to unwilling if you want
    You are arbitrarily complicating things.
    You say that because you can, as a free action, become willing, that unwilling is default.
    However, you can also, as a free action, become unwilling. (for beneficial spells). Shouldn't that mean that willing is default by your same logic?

    It never, ever says that either willing or unwilling is 'default'. Ever. It merely says that its possible to choose unconventional choices for saving throws (ie intentional fail a throw for something negative, and intentionally roll a throw on something positive).

    Your solution of some things starting off willing and others starting off unwilling just complicates things to no end. This becomes even more complicated when you start entering the realm of spells that aren't harmless in some situations, but are in others.

    Such as teleport. (You can only teleport with willing players, but not an 'unwilling' object. Does this mean that you can teleport with an unconscious player, but not his equipment, since they get the save?)

    What about slide? (Spell compendium) It has will save "Will negates", but no harmless or other. Does this mean you can't use slide to pull allies away from enemies when they're knocked unconscious? or can you not use it to separate unconscious enemies from their comrades?

    Too many 'beneficial' spells are not listed as 'harmless' to assume that unwilling is the default. Good luck telling some players next time they want to save their unconscious ally that they need to beat his will save.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    QUOTE=erikun

    And now, for the new recommendations:

    Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
    Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

    Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

    I'm not sure what you are saying here.


    Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate
    Page 198 in the Player's Handbook (and elsewhere): Animate Dead and related spells do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when creating evil undead.

    Summon Undead and related spell do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when summoning evil undead.

    Logic: It kills most of the undead/alignment debates, and allows the spell to be more setting-specific. Please note that most undead created or summoned by the spells are evil by default, meaning the spells will end up being [Evil] by standard rules regardless.

    Disagree. While this is probably a sensible move, it seems to me to be a house rule rather than a clarification.

    Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
    Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

    Logic: There is nothing evil about the spell, and it appears on at least one only-good spell list.

    Agree

    Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
    From here: Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane lowers HP rather than increasing it for undead. The loss of HP may not be prevented or mitigated by any means.

    Logic: Undead being the best capable of surviving in positive energy is just silly. Awkward wording, I know, but "taking damage" is so easy to prevent or become immune to.

    Agree

    Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
    For magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelated to attacking with the weapon, the bulk of the ammunition must be present to give the benefit.

    Logic: This is to prevent characters from buying +5 defending shuriken for 1440g, or ten manifester arrows for an additional 50 PP.

    It would actually make more sense to ban such enhancements from ammunition, otherwise, you open yourself to cheesy players having a dozen quivers in their packs full of half-used batches of magical arrows.

    Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No
    Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.

    Logic: There is no reason that the Swordsage would be unable to dodge just as well without light armor as with. The ability should not stack with a monk's ability, as well.

    Agree

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

    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.
    Disagree. While this should be the rule, RAW does appear to me to state that if you're unconscious, you don't get a save.

    As a house rule, I would say being unconscious means you are automatically willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomasinx View Post
    You are arbitrarily complicating things.
    You say that because you can, as a free action, become willing, that unwilling is default.
    However, you can also, as a free action, become unwilling. (for beneficial spells). Shouldn't that mean that willing is default by your same logic?

    It never, ever says that either willing or unwilling is 'default'. Ever. It merely says that its possible to choose unconventional choices for saving throws (ie intentional fail a throw for something negative, and intentionally roll a throw on something positive).

    Your solution of some things starting off willing and others starting off unwilling just complicates things to no end. This becomes even more complicated when you start entering the realm of spells that aren't harmless in some situations, but are in others.
    No, you approach a rule system with a standard. Look at the way M:TG rules are built. Lots of default states, and then certain conditions apply exceptions.

    You automatically resist hostile influences on your mind, because why the hell wouldn't you? It's my brain I'll decide how it works. Just like your heart beat keeping the status quo (No outside tampering) is a reflexive action that requires no effort on your part. Unless the rules for a specific exception change that.

    On the other hand, harmless spells are pretty much all spells you want to work when cast on you, and to avoid a will save every time the cleric heals you they don't get a save. Unless you want to resist. New default state, so the exception to the rule is what is spelled out and what is different.

    Its not needlessly complicated its pretty straight forward.
    Default for bad spells = resist.
    Default for good spells = allow.

    Rules list exceptions as applied to each class of spell.

    Such as teleport. (You can only teleport with willing players, but not an 'unwilling' object. Does this mean that you can teleport with an unconscious player, but not his equipment, since they get the save?)
    There is no issue with teleport. Carried gear goes with the player, unattended objects get no save, attended objects get a save as per the person holding them as usual if they wish to resist.

    What about slide? (Spell compendium) It has will save "Will negates", but no harmless or other. Does this mean you can't use slide to pull allies away from enemies when they're knocked unconscious? or can you not use it to separate unconscious enemies from their comrades?

    Too many 'beneficial' spells are not listed as 'harmless' to assume that unwilling is the default. Good luck telling some players next time they want to save their unconscious ally that they need to beat his will save.
    And this is completely not a problem because you can voluntarily give up your saving throw. You are inventing a rules problem where none exists.
    Last edited by TypoNinja; 2012-04-21 at 06:52 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    And this is completely not a problem because you can voluntarily give up your saving throw. You are inventing a rules problem where none exists.
    We are trying to establish common sense interpretations and corrections (without houseruling). Saying you can voluntarily do anything while unconscious - even choosing whether to roll or to automatically fail a saving throw - defies common sense.

    Its not needlessly complicated its pretty straight forward.
    Default for bad spells = resist.
    Default for good spells = allow.
    In the case of the dimension door airlift, who decides if it is a good or a bad spell? If a PC caster casts it, it's good, and bad if an NPC caster does it? How does the unconscious character know? Suppose the dimension dooring PC caster unwittingly rescued him from the frying pan into the fire -- can the unconscious PC ask to have his save back? What if the PC caster is charmed and taking him into greater danger? What if an NPC caster is charmed to rescue the unconscious PC?

    There's simply too many variables that an unconscious PC could not logically be aware of. Any ruling on whether a save is allowed has to be something very objectively quantifiable.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-21 at 06:56 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    We are trying to establish common sense interpretations and corrections (without houseruling). Saying you can voluntarily do anything while unconscious - even choosing whether to roll or to automatically fail a saving throw - defies common sense.

    Your brain doesn't turn off when you get a little percussive maintenance enforced nap time imposed upon you, yea you aren't awake anymore but you aren't brain dead either.

    Just like we have various states of physical vulnerability (flat footed, bound, paralyzed, helpless, ect) I think we should have various states of mental vulnerability as well. Plenty of people sleep walk after all, which requires a decent amount of coordination.

    If we can pull that off while out cold we should be able to resist an outside compulsion. Or recognize an ally helping us and not resist.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    Your brain doesn't turn off when you get a little percussive maintenance enforced nap time imposed upon you, yea you aren't awake anymore but you aren't brain dead either.

    Just like we have various states of physical vulnerability (flat footed, bound, paralyzed, helpless, ect) I think we should have various states of mental vulnerability as well. Plenty of people sleep walk after all, which requires a decent amount of coordination.

    If we can pull that off while out cold we should be able to resist an outside compulsion. Or recognize an ally helping us and not resist.
    A key point of the definition of "unconscious" is "not aware of your surroundings". For the lesser states to mention, there's is "dazed" or "stunned", both defined in game terms.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    A key point of the definition of "unconscious" is "not aware of your surroundings". For the lesser states to mention, there's is "dazed" or "stunned", both defined in game terms.
    Expect you are aware of your surroundings while unconscious. Outside stimulus affects dreams all the time. Even Coma patients notice.

    On the subject of dreams, lucid dreaming is possible. Conscious direction of your unconscious mind.
    Last edited by TypoNinja; 2012-04-21 at 07:06 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Unconscious is a defined condition, it is specifically different from sleeping, helpless, paralyzed, etc. and it says right there in the rules that an unconscious creature is always willing.

    They can't choose to be unwilling.
    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 - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    Expect you are away of your surroundings while unconscious. Outside stimulus affects dreams all the time. Even Coma patients notice.

    On the subject of dreams, lucid dreaming is possible. Conscious direction of your unconscious mind.
    I still want to know, how does your unconscious PC tell the difference between these situations? In brackets I have written what I believe your rule would require.

    * PC caster casts dimension door rescue (no save)
    * NPC caster casts dimension door to capture (save)
    * PC caster casts dimension door, inadvertently taking 'rescued' PC into more danger (no save)
    * NPC caster casts dimension door to 'capture', not knowing his HQ has already been overrun by PC-friendly forces (save)
    * Charmed PC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to monster lair (no save).
    * Charmed NPC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to the party's HQ (save).

    My personal approach (no save if unconscious, except for mind-affecting spells) would allow no save in each of these cases.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

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

    My vote:

    Rule 001: yes
    Rule 002: yes
    Rule 003: no. In most cases limiting the progression would make sense, buy there may be exception. It's best to handle this on a case-by-case basis.
    Rule 004: I can't vote because I don't know the wording of the rule written in ToB.
    Rule 005: yes.
    Rule 006: yes.
    Rule 007: I can't vote because I'm not comfortable enough with Trample rules to understand what this would mean balance-wise.
    Rule 008: no.
    Rule 010: yes.
    Rule 011: yes.
    Rule 012: no. "Ordinary clothing" isn't enough, since "ordinary armor" isn't enough either (needs to be Masterwork). There could be ways to make high valued clothings which are enchantable, though.
    Rule 013: yes. I don't know what the problem is but the rule sounds reasonable...
    Rule 014: I can't vote since I don't know what the problem with the offhand is. However, guys, I am right handed in real life and i grant you that I can't punch you effectively with my left hand even if the right one is empty...


    New rule:
    Rule ??: when Swimming in an armor, you suffer twice the armor's penalty even if you are proficient with the armor.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Jeff the Green's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great PNW
    Gender
    Male

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

    Huh. I only just saw this. Here's my votes

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes Yay.
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier Nay.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels Nay.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike Yay.
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead Nay.
    Spoiler
    Show
    A dead character is rendered unplayable until returned to life or retired from the game. Such a character can take no actions (including free actions).
    Emphasis added. As written, it would preclude liches, ghosts, necropolitans, Risen Martyrs, etc. It would be better if it were just the second sentence. It might also be wise to add something like "A dead creature is completely unaware of its surroundings," since reactive Spot and Listen checks aren't actions.

    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally Yay.
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves Nay.
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage Nay.
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? Nay.
    Spoiler
    Show
    As pointed out, this wreaks havoc with pounce.

    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? Nay.
    Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Yay.
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox Yay.
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed Yay.
    Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield! Yay.
    Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate Nay.
    Spoiler
    Show
    While I think this is a reasonable house rule, it's still a house rule.

    Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil Yay.
    Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead Nay.
    Spoiler
    Show
    A perfectly reasonable house rule, but still a house rule.

    Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles Nay.
    Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No Yay.
    Homebrew
    Campaign
    From across the multiverse to Barovia: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft IC OOC
    Characters
    Elidiel, changeling anthropologist | Rook, kenku swindler | Spellweaver with a literally unpronounceable name, mad scientist

    Quote Originally Posted by Marlowe View Post
    Physical fitness comes from a healthy diet and regular exercise; not from a chocolate-covered make-out session with a pointy-eared tart of indeterminate gender!
    Greenman by Bradakhan/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pigkappa View Post
    My vote:
    New rule:
    Rule ??: when Swimming in an armor, you suffer twice the armor's penalty even if you are proficient with the armor.
    Agree

    The SRD for Swim skill says double normal armour check penalties apply, making this RAW for that paragraph.

    The d20SRD for armour says:

    Armor Check Penalty
    Any armor heavier than leather hurts a characterís ability to use some skills. An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks. A characterís encumbrance (the amount of gear carried, including armor) may also apply an armor check penalty.


    (emphasis mine). Again, this is RAW.

    The d20 SRD for Armour Proficiency says:

    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.


    Swim is notably absent from this list in the feat description, which would imply that Swim is not subject to any skill check penalty if you are proficient with the armour (and applies the base skill check penalty for that armour type if not proficient in the armour).

  25. - Top - End - #85
    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 Jeff the Green View Post
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? Nay.

    As pointed out, this wreaks havoc with pounce.
    How exactly are the current mounted combat rules + pounce not screwed up to begin with?

    I'm not sure that a barbarian that can pounce on foot should also be able to do so from horseback. How exactly do most of you handle a Spirit Lion Totem barbarian who wants to pounce while mounted?

    (Under the existing rules, I can't figure out if it's allowed or not... mostly because the rules aren't entirely clear who is actually spending the full-round action to charge.)

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    mattie_p's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    <<Undetected>>
    Gender
    Male

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

    This seems like a likely question to ask here, as there is a debate on the particulars of the exact RAW, both in the thread and the Incarnum Handbook:

    Do the "Open [X] Chakra" feats from Magic of Incarnum give you an additional Chakra Bind in addition to opening up that Chakra slot?

    Example: Say I'm a Big Stupid Fighter with no Meldshaper levels and I take Shape Soulmeld (Necrocarnum Blade) then Open Least Chakra (Hands).

    Can this character Bind his Necrocarnum Blade to his now opened Hands Chakra even though he technically has no Chakra Binds available?
    I answered in the negative:

    Spoiler
    Show
    I have scoured MoI to attempt to answer this question for you. There are numerous interactions that take place here. For Example:

    The feat Shape Soulmeld states "... If you have the ability to bind a soulmeld to a chakra, you can bind this soulmeld to any chakra available to you."

    The feat Open Least Chakra states "When this feat is selected, choose one of the following chakras... You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra."

    So you can bind a soulmeld to that chakra, but this counts against your number of available chakra binds. I cannot find any feat, spell, power, or other means to get even one available chakra bind other than as a class feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Originally Posted by MoI, p 50
    The specific chakras and the number of chakra binds available to the meldshaper depends on his level.
    Quote Originally Posted by MoI, Chakra binds class feature, various pages
    Beginning at x level, you can bind your soulmelds to your chakras... The number of chakra binds you can have active at any one time depends on your level (see table for class).
    While this fighter has the ability to shape a soulmeld, and the ability to bind that soulmeld to his hands chakra, the maximum number of chakra binds he can have active at any one time is still 0, therefore the ability cannot be used. He could, if he has any available essentia, still invest essentia into this soulmeld and have it occupy his hands, but he could not bind it to his hands chakra.


    There was a dissenting opinion, which I can understand:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos
    The line "You can now bind a soulmeld..." in Open Least Chakra certainly looks to me like it's saying that you gain the ability to bind a soulmeld. And then we get the Shape Soulmeld line "if you have the ability to bind a soulmeld to a chakra...", which should now apply. So by the reading of the feats, it certainly looks like a character with those two feats but no incarnum class can bind their soulmeld to their chakra.


    What is the opinion of the thread? I will vote on the other topics later, probably tomorrow, after reviewing the opinions, but I wanted to get this in now.

    For what its worth, my vote on this question is that the "Open X Chakra" feat does not grant an additional chakra bind at that location, you can only utilize this feat if you can already form chakra binds.

    Proposed rule: "Open X Chakra. (Feat/Spell/Power) When this feat is selected choose an appropriate chakra based on X. You can now bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra if you already have the ability to bind soulmelds to your chakras as a class feature.
    Last edited by mattie_p; 2012-04-21 at 09:09 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    I still want to know, how does your unconscious PC tell the difference between these situations? In brackets I have written what I believe your rule would require.

    * PC caster casts dimension door rescue (no save)
    * NPC caster casts dimension door to capture (save)
    * PC caster casts dimension door, inadvertently taking 'rescued' PC into more danger (no save)
    * NPC caster casts dimension door to 'capture', not knowing his HQ has already been overrun by PC-friendly forces (save)
    * Charmed PC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to monster lair (no save).
    * Charmed NPC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to the party's HQ (save).

    My personal approach (no save if unconscious, except for mind-affecting spells) would allow no save in each of these cases.
    Flavour it out however you like, the downed PC is familiar with how his allies magic feels. Magic cast with hostile intent always feels different than magic cast with good intentions. One of the things the PC's practice in all that down time we gloss over when they never use the bathroom includes attuning everybody to their allies powers so that they reflexively accept allied magic and reflexive reject hostile magic, seems like something an adventurer would invest time in.

    How is not the point, its a rules system not a physics class. You are falling into the same trap a lot of people do looking for reasons beyond "This is how the game functions". Realism is usually the first casualty upon the almighty alter of fun and its little brother useability.

    At the basis of this rule is something I consider to be the cardinal sin of gaming. Taking control of of the PC away from the Player. This should never be done lightly. You aren't talking about a penalty to a save, or un favorable conditions, you are straight up saying no save. You as the DM tells the player something happens that they have no say or reaction to. A will save still keeps them involved, taking it away turns them into a spectator.

    Worse, the circumstances this can come up in are far more likely to be the PC's on the receiving end. Its like level loss, the PC's typically don't care if they inflict it, what they fight lives less than 30 seconds on average anyway. but to a PC level loss is a serious threat.

    This to me says "bad rule".

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    Well, let's see:

    1 -- Drowning for Health Purposes. Agreed.

    2 -- My Thesis: More Complex is Easier. Agreed.

    This game is only getting any support if we support it -- I have no complaints against making what may be viewed as outright changes if we can agree that there's a clear need for them.

    3 -- Bonus Legacy Class Levels. Agreed. See (2)

    4 -- Superior Unarmed Strike. Agreed.

    5 -- Dead is Dead. I'd suggest different wording:

    While dead, a character is not normally playable. If a corpse remains, it is considered a separate entity to the character herself, except for the purposes of spells and effects that explicitly operate on dead creatures.

    The character's soul -- and the character herself -- are elsewhere. Where the character is, how much of her own identity she retains, and what capabilities she has are all setting-dependent, and as such, are determined by the DM.


    Since D&D assumes that characters have souls, it actually does make more sense for them to be considered "not present", rather than completely denied all actions.

    6 -- Using What Comes Naturally. Agreed.

    7 -- Wolves with Hooves. Agreed.

    8 -- Dragonblood and Heritage. Abstained.

    10 -- Who's Charging, Anyways?. Agreed. We can consider the full-attack issue separately. In particular, the 5ft restriction isn't new and has always been in the rules.

    11 -- Who's Riding By, Anyways?. Agreed.

    12 -- Anything Can Be Armour. Agreed. See (2)

    13 -- Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox. Agreed in principle, but should also explain how you can be disqualified from a prestige class, including a provision that you can re-qualify as soon as you meet the prerequisites again.

    14 -- I'm Not Left Handed. Agreed.

    15 -- Unconscious does not Mean Mindraped. Agreed.

    The phrasing "considered willing" implies right off the bat that they aren't willing -- they are merely "considered willing [for a particular purpose]". Going from there to "considered willing for the purposes of these spells" strikes me as being entirely reasonable.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-04-21 at 10:37 AM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon
    Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
    Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

    Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

    I'm not sure what you are saying here.
    By RAW default, a shield bash is ALWAYS an off-hand attack; it's never stated as anything BUT an off-hand attack in the rules. RAW makes Captain America builds extremely awkward.

    I approve the change, by the way.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV.

    Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
    Spoiler
    Show

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The New Mexico Wastelands
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    Flavour it out however you like, the downed PC is familiar with how his allies magic feels. Magic cast with hostile intent always feels different than magic cast with good intentions. One of the things the PC's practice in all that down time we gloss over when they never use the bathroom includes attuning everybody to their allies powers so that they reflexively accept allied magic and reflexive reject hostile magic, seems like something an adventurer would invest time in.

    How is not the point, its a rules system not a physics class. You are falling into the same trap a lot of people do looking for reasons beyond "This is how the game functions". Realism is usually the first casualty upon the almighty alter of fun and its little brother useability.

    At the basis of this rule is something I consider to be the cardinal sin of gaming. Taking control of of the PC away from the Player. This should never be done lightly. You aren't talking about a penalty to a save, or un favorable conditions, you are straight up saying no save. You as the DM tells the player something happens that they have no say or reaction to. A will save still keeps them involved, taking it away turns them into a spectator.

    Worse, the circumstances this can come up in are far more likely to be the PC's on the receiving end. Its like level loss, the PC's typically don't care if they inflict it, what they fight lives less than 30 seconds on average anyway. but to a PC level loss is a serious threat.

    This to me says "bad rule".
    In my game I solve this problem as follows:

    Attempting to resist magic is the norm, and characters will do so even if unconscious or unaware of the spell being cast.
    Characters may consciously lower their resistance against a spell they are aware of and want to allow.
    Players can perform a ritual of trust which allows the participants to cast spells upon them without resistance, which lasts forever unless the bond is broken. If the character is aware of the spell and consciously resisting it they may save as normal.

    Implementing something similar in D&D would, I think, fall under house rules and outside the bounds of this thread. But still, having someone fail every will save under the sun because they fall unconscious for a second is a bit dumb, as has been states even sleeping characters, objects, and mindless creatures get a save.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2012-04-21 at 11:54 AM.

Posting Permissions

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