Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    I've numbered Siosilvar's proposals, but not the thing on chakra binds or the query about natural weapons.

    16 -- On Tower Shields. Disagree, although they do need work. The intent, as far as I'm aware, is that the total cover is mutual: you "give up your attacks" because you're denied LoE.

    17 -- Non-Floating Armour. Agree.


    In answer to Siosilvar's proposals:

    18 (S1) -- On Feats. Agree.

    19 (S2) -- On Multiclassing. Agreed. As far as I'm aware, this was a genuine screw-up.

    20 (S3) -- Temporary Qualifications. Agreed. This seems acceptable to me.

    21 (S4) Abstained.

    22 (S5b) -- On Aptitude. The second version seems reasonable.

    In answer to hamishspence:

    23 -- On Lava and Immunities. Agree. I imagine the wording should be:

    A resistance or immunity to fire is also effective against damage dealt by lava or magma.

    In answer to Erikun's proposals:

    24 -- My Weapon Is My Shield: Agreed.

    25 -- Animate Alignment Debate: Agreed. An outright house rule, but again, I'm still willing to rubber-stamp it.

    26 -- Death Watches No Evil: Agreed.

    27 -- Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Agreed.

    28 -- Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Disagreed. I agree with the need for a fix, but I prefer Ashtagon's solution of simply banning ammunition from having those enhancements.

    29 -- Swordsaging in Leather or No: Agreed.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-04-21 at 03:12 PM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    I've taken the thread to not only makes rules clarifications, but also clean up some rules awkwardness. Hence, the Animate Alignment Debate proposal - there's technically nothing in core that causes a problem, but if you change something with homebrew, you end up in the strange situation where it is evil to create a good-aligned creature with no drawback. That's pretty much the definition of awkward mechanics interaction.

    Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles does seem rather awkward, although I'll leave it up there for now. Just disallowing the specific enhancements to ammunition seems like a better idea, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped
    Approved, because while it technically "isn't RAW", being unconcious wasn't intended to be willing for spells like Dominate.
    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

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    I've taken the thread to not only makes rules clarifications, but also clean up some rules awkwardness. Hence, the Animate Alignment Debate proposal - there's technically nothing in core that causes a problem, but if you change something with homebrew, you end up in the strange situation where it is evil to create a good-aligned creature with no drawback. That's pretty much the definition of awkward mechanics interaction.
    As far as I can tell, this is mainly about resolving obvious rules bugs and providing fair judgements for ambiguous rules, but I don't think it's reasonable to down vote something on the basis that it seems like a house rule, as long as it isn't high-impact.

    More issues for consideration:

    30 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield

    To be added to the description of the hide skill:

    For the purposes of the Hide skill, a character may not claim cover from an object she wishes to hide, nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide.

    This patches a rules oversight: the hide skill requires cover or concealment before it can be used, but accepts cover that it really shouldn't. If you have a tower shield, you can use it to grant cover and then use that cover to hide -- which also hides the shield. RAW also allows you to hide behind things that don't impede vision, such as invisible creatures and force constructs.

    31 -- Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity:

    To be added to the description of the full attack action:

    If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action. However, a full attack never provokes more than one attack of opportunity from a given opponent, no matter how many ranged or unarmed attacks you make.

    This comes up every time we get a thread about bizarro RAW: the argument is that full attacks with ranged weapons or unarmed strikes never provoke attacks of opportunity by RAW.

    One RAW reading that I find reasonable (in "makes sense" terms) is that only the first attack counts -- the full attack action itself doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, but you don't determine that you're making a full attack as opposed to a standard action attack until after the first attack is resolved. I changed this to never provoking more than once per full attack, since it's less prone to quirks if the character mixes ranged and melee attacks.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-04-21 at 05:44 PM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Godskook's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

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

    I may be missing your intent on what this is, but I've posted my reactiosn below, and I think I found 1 rule that I'd put in RACSD instead of RAI, RAW, or houserules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes (currently approved at 11/0; 100%: Andorax, Djinn in Tonic, GoodbyeSoberDay, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)
    This is RAI, not RACSD, imho. If you're dead-set on the overlap, I agree, this needs to be a clarification to the original RAW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier (currently disapprovedat 7/3; 70%: Andorax, Doug Lampert, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol for, GoodbyeSoberDay, JoeYounger, Dandria against)
    This is not RACSD, cause it isn't 'common sense' at all. This is straight houserule/homebrew, and a version contrary to how I'd personally handle it.

    The rule itself works(and I'd play in a game using it just fine), but its not RACSD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels (currently disapproved at 7/3; 70%: Andorax, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, docnessuno, Dandria for, GoodbyeSoberDay, JadePhoenix, Lonely Tylenol against)
    Again, RAI, imho.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike (currently approved at 10/1;91%: Andorax, Sgt. Cookie, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, Lapak, Dandria for, docnessuno against)
    Agree, definitely a RACSD ruling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead (currently approved at 12/0; 100%: Djinn in Tonic, Andorax, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)
    This one's RAI again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally (currently approved at 10/0; 100%: tuggyne, KillianHawkeye, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)
    1.This one unintentionally gives some monsters(like elementals who had natural weapons, but not unarmed strike) extra attacks they didn't have before. That needs to be fixed.

    2.Again, I'd argue this isn't RACSD but rather RAI already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves (currently disapproved at 7/2; 77%: Menteith, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Talya, docnessuno, Dandria for, Ashtagon, Lonely Tylenol against)
    This has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with fluff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage (currently disapproved at 3/4; 43%: Sgt. Cookie, Talya, docnessuno for, Andorax, JadePhoenix, Ashtagon, Dandria against)
    Pretty sure this one is just houserule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Darrin, Andorax for)

    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Darrin, Andorax for)
    I think this is houserule/homebrew, not RACSD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 012: Anything can be Armor (currently disapproved at 2/1; 67%: Ashtagon, Lapak for, Dandria against)
    RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox (currently approved at 3/0; 100%: Telonius, Andorax, Dandria for)
    There's debate about this one, but I argue that this is RAW(via primary source rules) for pretty much every class out there(that rule only applies to the books its written in). Its also RAI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Keld Denar, Talya for)
    Unnecessary. Anytime this might come up with a particular game, the DM is going to rule against this RACSD(if he was going to rule for it, it wouldn't have come up).
    Last edited by Godskook; 2012-04-21 at 05:19 PM.
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    002: Hmm, a bit dubious. I think nearly everyone would agree that adding Invisible Spell to an Arcane Thesis'd Fireball should not give you a level 2 Fireball. However, not everyone would agree that Empower Spell + Invisible Spell should equal Empower Spell.
    ... I must have been tired when I wrote this. What I meant to say was more like, "not everyone would agree that an Empowered Invisible Fireball with Arcane Thesis should have the same level as an Empowered Fireball with Arcane Thesis."

    Others' comments about this being more of a houserule than a dictate of common sense also seem accurate. So, in its current form, I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Updated 4/20/12

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes
    Note that I approve of this change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels
    I think I'll have to change to abstaining from this for now; I'm not confident that the proposal handles all cases appropriately, and I think it needs a bit more work before it's ready.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

    Revised wording for the Trample feat (PHB p. 102). When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon (hoof, claw, or other leg-based attack) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
    This seems reasonable, although correcting the title to leave out wolves might be good. Agreed, for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage
    Since I don't have access to the original source, I'll have to abstain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?
    This needs more work to properly handle various corner cases; as such, I'll have to disagree for now, although the general idea seems desirable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?
    This seems similarly problematic at the moment, so disagree until further corrections are made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 012: Anything can be Armor
    I actually don't see this as common sense, or desirable, although I was reminded that there seems to be a rule somewhere (MIC?) that means this is actually RAW already. Either way I would disagree, although that obviously means little against RAW (aside from simply houseruling it away).

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox
    Entirely desirable and well-worded; agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed
    This is arguably* RAW as is, but the clarification is desirable. Agreed.

    *By which I mean, I have seen multiple-page threads arguing this question without coming to unanimity. The consensus was still fairly clear, though.

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

    ...

    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.
    Agreed; this is the most consistent, player-friendly, and logical means of handling the various situations, as far as I can tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    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.)
    I'm pretty sure this really needs an in-depth study before inclusion, so abstain for now. (I'm not sure I have enough sources available to do that myself, sadly.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    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).
    That's what I've heard as well, and agreed. (Removing or entirely reworking multiclassing XP penalties would be highly desirable, but is outside the scope of the thread.)[/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    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.
    As far as I know, this is already essentially RAW, but clarifying it isn't a bad idea. Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    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).
    Uncertain due to unfamiliarity with source, although this seems reasonable enough; abstain for now, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siosilvar View Post
    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.)
    I suspect the second alternative is the better one for this thread, but I can't be sure; abstain with tendencies toward agreement with S5b.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    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.
    It might be desirable to include a reference to the facing variant rules in UA, since a lot of DMs and players unconsciously try to bring them in when tower shields are used. Other than that, agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.
    This is essentially an editing fix (or perhaps a problem with the SRD?), so agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    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?)
    I think this may be veering off into houserules territory; in any case, I'm not totally confident this handles all cases well enough just yet. Disagreed, for now, pending some further discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    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.
    This might be more sensibly put under Improved Shield Bash or similar, no? Abstain for now, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    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.
    This actually depends, at least in principle, on one's view of animation necromancy/negative energy as being inherently evil or merely dangerous. I am a little ambivalent over this, but it is at least an improvement over the PHB's viewpoint; agreed at present, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
    Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.
    Entirely agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    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.
    Making it impossible to prevent or mitigate this seems a little overmuch. Simply converting it into an equivalent amount of positive energy damage should be enough, in my opinion. (I believe this interacts properly with spells like life ward, for a certain amount of symmetry with death ward and the Negative-Dominant planes.) Disagree with stated rule, agree after proposed modifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    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.
    Initially I misunderstood this as saying merely that the bulk of the ammunition must be present at time of creation to gain the benefits, which is not only not helpful, but weaker than RAW. Perhaps a clarification would be useful somehow. Agreed, especially after clarifying.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    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.
    Indeed, this seems logical, so I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    As far as I can tell, this is mainly about resolving obvious rules bugs and providing fair judgements for ambiguous rules, but I don't think it's reasonable to down vote something on the basis that it seems like a house rule, as long as it isn't high-impact.
    As I see it, the thread intends to occupy the middle of the spectrum between what might be termed unambiguous RAW, ambiguous RAW, probable RAI, commonly-accepted RAI, sensible houserule, common houserule, and occasional houserules. Sensible houserules that nearly anyone would be willing to play with fit in at the edge, but are a bit outside the sweet spot. Does that make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    30 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield

    To be added to the description of the hide skill:

    For the purposes of the Hide skill, a character may not claim cover from an object she wishes to hide, nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide.
    Indeed, this is a useful patch, so agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    31 -- Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity:

    To be added to the description of the full attack action:

    If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action. However, a full attack never provokes more than one attack of opportunity from a given opponent, no matter how many ranged or unarmed attacks you make.
    Surprisingly, I'd never actually noticed this corner case before, and had assumed that a full attack gave as many AoOs as individual attack actions. This proposed adjustment removes the exploit but reduces the impact of AoOs on ranged characters from certain naive readings, so I tend to agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    I may be missing your intent on what this is, but I've posted my reactiosn below, and I think I found 1 rule that I'd put in RACSD instead of RAI, RAW, or houserules.
    See my response to lesser_minion above for my take on this thread's sweet spot; what is commonly considered RAI should probably be subsumed entirely by proper RACSD rulings.

    [Re: 002]
    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    This is not RACSD, cause it isn't 'common sense' at all. This is straight houserule/homebrew, and a version contrary to how I'd personally handle it.

    The rule itself works(and I'd play in a game using it just fine), but its not RACSD.
    I'm inclined to agree; while strict common sense may suggest this, it doesn't necessarily dictate it, especially in the presence of "magic being magic". The lesser form ("metamagic reduction cannot reduce a spell below its original level") is less difficult, however.

    [Re: 006]
    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    1.This one unintentionally gives some monsters(like elementals who had natural weapons, but not unarmed strike) extra attacks they didn't have before. That needs to be fixed.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    Unnecessary. Anytime this might come up with a particular game, the DM is going to rule against this RACSD(if he was going to rule for it, it wouldn't have come up).
    I don't fully understand your reasoning here. Could you elaborate?




    1

    Finally, I suggest a modification to the way new rule changes are proposed: all proposed rule changes should be numbered consecutively; a change that is rejected for some reason is simply marked "rejected", "no consensus", "removed", or the like, as 009 currently is, rather than being silently deleted. This should remove some ambiguity and make discussion a bit easier and more compact. It also reduces workload on the OP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

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

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Wow...take a weekend off, and watch the project go nuts. I've altered the format slightly to make it easier for me to manage (including putting the 'votes' in the spoiler area so as to declutter) and I *think* I have everything caught up.

    PLEASE NOTE: A number of issues have had multiple numbers/references floating about. Please refer back to the second post of this thread for the official number designations of various issues, as they will vary from others utilized to date.

    Page 2:

    Namfuak, I've adjusted Rule 013 according to your suggestion. Prestige classes shouldn't be self-negating (taking away your qualifcation for, or access to features of, or ability to advance in, the class itself).


    Ashtagon, your suggested mofication to Rule 004 makes sense..it's been noted.


    Malachei, to answer your question this isn't intended to be a clearinghouse of house rules (hence, things like the "-4 to saves for unconscious" not being included). There may well be a few cases where an actual stated rule change is necessary to clarify something that's outright ambiguous, but adding new rules because they make sense or sound good is NOT the intent of this project.

    Technically, Rule 005 is an added "house rule", for example...but it's there for clarification, not modification.


    Siosilvar, good catch that Wolves have only a bite attack, and are thus a bad example for taking advantage of Rule 007. Revised to "Lions with Hooves".

    I'd be open to another, separate rule for what happens if you lose pre-requisites for a PrC SEPARATE from the PrC's own features, but I think Rule 013 needs to stand as-writ.

    I'm working on wording and including your additional rules...sorry it's taken so long since posting them.


    Menteith, Tower Shields in at rule 16.


    Sgt. Cookie: Thanks for that clarification. Seeing the Dragontouched feat now, I'm going ahead and changing out my opinion on the feat (have shifted from against to for) and reworded the new rule accordingly to reference the feat...better explanation.


    Emperor Tippy...I'm going to assume that's an "against" for rule 015?

    Page 3:

    Darrin, natual weapon clarifications in at #018 and #019. Hope the name choices work for you. Sadly, I do have to disagree with you on Rule #019, since it's getting too far into the realm of house rules. I agree there is precident for large+ = 2 slams, and med- = 1 slam, but I'm concerned that it's too far-reaching in its terms, and that there may be unintended consequences of giving EVERYTHING a slam attack. It wouldn't be a class feature for Warforged if regular humans, elves, halflings, etc. all have slams too.


    erikun, could I ask you to look over Rule 3 again? The intent is NOT to prevent, or even MODIFY, the rules for epic class progressions. In fact, those are explicitly called out (and now with a reword more clearly so) as an exception to the rule. The intent is to prevent people from using "+class features" clases, such as the Legacy Champion, to level certain other classes (such as the Hellfire Warlock) beyond their exisiting 3 levels. I've recorded you as against for the time being, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn't there.

    Some of your added rules are in. Your Animate and Deathwatch rules appear to be a bit too far into the realm of "sensible houserule"...it's clearly spelled out that they have the [Evil] descriptor at present. Personally, I'd agree with both, but I don't think they're quite what we're looking for in this thread.

    I've also taken a completely different tack on Enchanting Projectiles (rule #022)...the problem I saw with your original wording was that it leaves "the bulk of" up for debate...is 40 enough? 30? Why does firing that 21st arrow negate it, when it applied while you still had 30? A ban is a far more logical (makes no sense to put it on ammo in the first place) approach. I have NOT recorded your vote either way, since it's such a drastic change. Ironically, I made this change prior to seeing two other people pre-emtively cast votes for the same change.

    Finally, I made a tweak to your positive drawbacks rule (#023)...there is a such a thing as positive energy protection, and it ought to work for undead.


    Jeff the Green...a very interesting technical point on dead is dead (Rule 005). I've tweaked the wording to "until the dead condition is removed".

    Page 4:

    lesser minion, I tweaked your "full attack/attack of opportunity" wording ever so slightly to take away the "never" phrase, as for some reason I vaguely recall a feat that lets you make multiple attacks with a single opportunity. Other than that, I'm all for it.


    Godskook, a fair amount of RACSD is going to be called RAI. The problem with calling it RAI is that you open up the debate about what the designer's intent is. RACSD avoids said debate by replacing "what I know the designer meant, because I had coffee wit him and asked him" with "what we think makes the most sense, and is probably RAI, but we can't confirm it for certain sure".

    I was able to get "some" of your opinions for or against out of what you posted...please feel free to clarify, correct, and expand.


    tuggyne, your suggestion that all rules changes going forward be added to the list and marked out if not used (such as "this is a houserule, rejected") is a good one. I'll try to apply that more consistently going forward, and will also try to keep up with the thread.


    One of the proposals suggests another rule I'd like to toss out for discussion:

    Rule 033: No Double Dipping

    Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

    Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.



    There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?


    Finally...to everyone involved. THANK YOU! The response has been considerable, and good discussion has come of it. Please, keep it coming!
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    Rule #33 is already in my set of houserules, and as such I'm all for its formalization here.
    Star Metallurgist of the Roy Fanclub

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

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes For.
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier No opinion.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels No opinion.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike For.
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead For... I guess. Silly, though.
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally For.
    Rule 007: Lions with Hooves No opinion.
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage No opinion.
    Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? No opinion.
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? No opinion.
    Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Against.
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox For.
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed For.
    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped Against.
    Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? For.
    Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour For.
    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For... I suppose. If I understand it right.
    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.
    Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield! For.
    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles For.
    Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No For.
    Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead For.
    Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free No opinion.
    Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted For.
    Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats For.
    Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous For.
    Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified For.
    Rule 029: Whiplash No opinion.
    Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude No opinion.
    Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude No opinion.
    Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield For.
    Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity For.
    Rule 033: No Double Dipping Against.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Troll 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 Andorax View Post
    Darrin, natual weapon clarifications in at #018 and #019. Hope the name choices work for you. Sadly, I do have to disagree with you on Rule #019, since it's getting too far into the realm of house rules. I agree there is precident for large+ = 2 slams, and med- = 1 slam, but I'm concerned that it's too far-reaching in its terms, and that there may be unintended consequences of giving EVERYTHING a slam attack. It wouldn't be a class feature for Warforged if regular humans, elves, halflings, etc. all have slams too.
    You may be reading too much into my fixes, then. I thought I was very careful to describe what we see consistently in the MM stat blocks (hopefully Keld can back me up on this, as I believe he did a lot of research on slams). I say creatures "may" have a slam attack, not that all humanoids must be given one. (If we went that route, I'd be more in favor of just giving everyone an "unarmed strike" rather than a slam attack.) I'm only describing existing slam attacks, and trying to settle the issue of "do I still get a slam attack if I'm wielding a greatsword?"

    If it's confusing people, though, then maybe I should reword it:

    There are two types of "slam" attacks: 1) For creatures with a slam attack 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 have slam attacks and are larger than medium size generally have two slam attacks, one for each arm. If one or both arms are occupied, then one or both slam attacks are lost. If the creature with a slam attack is medium-sized or smaller, then it generally has only a single slam attack, but it must have at least one unoccupied arm to attack with it. 2) For creatures with a slam attack that have no discernible anatomy or an amorphous form (oozes, some aberrations), this is a "body slam" which can be used without regard to any particular appendage, occupied or otherwise.


    Only the bolded sentence really goes beyond the existing (and/or unwritten) rules, and it may be a nerf to Warforged if you believe they can still slam even while wielding a greatsword. But I'm trying to match what we see in the MM for larger-sized humanoids losing their slam attacks when wielding manufactured weapons... if we say giants lose their slams for wielding a two-handed weapon, why wouldn't the Warforged? And this is an issue that needs to be settled, because the rules say absolutely nothing about how to resolve this.

    I haven't actually played much with Warforged, so... how exactly do the rest of you handle their slam attack?

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    On rule 14:
    Yay, as written, but as I've pointed out many times; the rules for TWF apply whenever both hands are used for striking an opponent, not just when getting an extra attack.

    See for example this quote on double weapons for clarification:
    Double Weapons
    Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

    The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
    I'll vote/comment on the others when I've had a chance to parse through properly.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    erikun, could I ask you to look over Rule 3 again? The intent is NOT to prevent, or even MODIFY, the rules for epic class progressions. In fact, those are explicitly called out (and now with a reword more clearly so) as an exception to the rule. The intent is to prevent people from using "+class features" clases, such as the Legacy Champion, to level certain other classes (such as the Hellfire Warlock) beyond their exisiting 3 levels. I've recorded you as against for the time being, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn't there.
    Perhaps. I'm not familiar with the particular exploit, so perhaps I'm missing what it is trying to fix. I'll change my stance from disapproved to Neutral for the time being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Some of your added rules are in. Your Animate and Deathwatch rules appear to be a bit too far into the realm of "sensible houserule"...it's clearly spelled out that they have the [Evil] descriptor at present. Personally, I'd agree with both, but I don't think they're quite what we're looking for in this thread.
    That's fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    I've also taken a completely different tack on Enchanting Projectiles (rule #022)...the problem I saw with your original wording was that it leaves "the bulk of" up for debate...is 40 enough? 30? Why does firing that 21st arrow negate it, when it applied while you still had 30? A ban is a far more logical (makes no sense to put it on ammo in the first place) approach. I have NOT recorded your vote either way, since it's such a drastic change. Ironically, I made this change prior to seeing two other people pre-emtively cast votes for the same change.

    Finally, I made a tweak to your positive drawbacks rule (#023)...there is a such a thing as positive energy protection, and it ought to work for undead.
    Both work just fine. I'll be mentioning them again, below, along with everything else new to the first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?
    I think it's a combination of Magic Vestment working on ordinary clothing and AC-providing magical clothing such as Robe of the Archmagi. I am fairly certain there is no rule related to putting armor enhancements on standard clothing.

    I'll just skip the rules I'm neutral on.

    Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour
    Approved, and it was probably forgotten with the system change.

    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!
    Approved, as long as we aren't considering slams (below). Attempting to claw or bite while holding something in that appendage doesn't make sense, unless they drop said item as a free action to make the attack.

    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally
    Disapproved. A slam is much like an unarmed strike; something competent enough to have one in their stat block would be able to use them with their hands full. I could see not allowing a slam attack from an arm strapped into a tower shield, for example, but it should not be difficult to smack someone in the head with your arm even if it is holding a longsword.

    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
    Approved.

    Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted
    Approved, and a much more sensible interaction.

    Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous
    Approved, as this is another rule that seems to have mistakenly vanished on the edition change.

    Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified
    Disapproved. This is kind of unusual rule in general, but the specific wording (the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means) means that, for example, any character could take anything with Evasion as a prerequisite because they have the ability to acquire it through a Ring of Evasion, even if they don't have the ring.

    There is also the problem of any spell which grants capabilities, even for one round, grants entry into a prestige class. A human could enter Beholder Mage at first level, because they have the ability to be affected by Polymorph and change into a beholder for a few rounds.

    There is also the big question of what class abilities (speaking of prestige classes) are "dependent" on the specific feat.

    Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield
    Approved.

    Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity
    Approved. I'm not so sure it is a clarification as much as a house rule, but I doubt anyone intented the archer receiving 4x power attacks just for attacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 033: No Double Dipping

    Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

    Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.
    I'm a bit on the fence about this. On the one hand, some situations (Paladin + Crusader, Monk + Ninja) were clearly not intended to stack.

    On the other hand, we have situations like Fist of the Forest + Deepwarden. This combination is clearly supposed to stack, as FotF grants the CON bonus as natural armor, while Deepwarden replaces DEX with CON for AC purposes.

    Saying that it doesn't stack unless specifically permitted by the ability is unusual, as I know of no situation where this is specifically called out.
    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

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 033: No Double Dipping

    Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

    Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.
    Against. Some specific instances of this stack are called out as specifically not stacking. To me, this means that other instances are assumed to stack unless noted.
    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...

  13. - Top - End - #103
    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 Gwendol View Post
    On rule 14:
    Yay, as written, but as I've pointed out many times; the rules for TWF apply whenever both hands are used for striking an opponent, not just when getting an extra attack.

    See for example this quote on double weapons for clarification:
    I don't see anything in there that discounts what I said. If you have a BAB of +6 and you attack with two different weapons, you probably aren't TWFing. You MIGHT be TWFing, assuming you take the penalties and use the combat option, but you can also not be if you are only making your normal iterative attacks. Nothing about a double weapon stops you from swinging one side as a 2 handed weapon, then switching grips and swinging the other side as a 2 handed weapon as your secondary iterative attack. Changing weapons, changing hands, all that, doesn't matter in the slightest since there is no handedness in 3.5 anymore. You could slash someone with a longsword in your right hand, switch it to your left hand, and slash them again with no penalties, as long as you have 2 attacks per round normally. Heck, you don't even need to use your hands. You could slash someone 10' away from you with a glaive, drop them, and continue full attacking against an adjacent for with your iterative attacks using your armor spikes. No handedness means no handedness, no matter how many hands you use, assuming you even use hands.

    And I fully support Darrin's proposal. IF a creature has slam attacks, and IF that creature is humanoid, those slams are made with their arms, which means that those arms can't be used to make other attacks like claws or manufactured weapon attacks. No creature in the MM has a full attack stat block that includes its slams in conjunction with weapon attacks made with a weapon held in those hands. Slams for a humanoid creature are basically a bludgeoning claw attack, in this regard. Non-humanoids with slam attacks, like oozes, don't need this rule since they don't normally wield weapons, unlike warforged or giants. There should have been a seperate attack type for humanoids than slam so that it wouldn't be confusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
    AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
    _________________________________
    A beholder’s favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?
    It is, in fact, not "in the MiC somewhere". The rules that they are (erroneously) referring to are the "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" rules, found on the MiC p. 233, with a table on p. 234. The rules detailed there, as written, allow you to make a tube top of armor +1. They do not allow you to make a +1 tube top. The distinction is fine--both give a +1 armor bonus to Armor Class, which at face value looks the same--but the former is an item effect, while the latter is an armor enhancement. Further, the former is treated as a wondrous item, and the latter as a piece of armor. The practical implications of this difference are that you can have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an item effect that adds an enhancement value to your armor class, is regarded as a wondrous item, and cannot be enchanted as if it were armor (which is RAW, RAI, and common sense), but you cannot have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an armor enhancement increasing the value of its armor class, is regarded as armor, and can be enchanted normally as if it were armor with things like radiant, spearblock, blurring, and others (which is neither RAW, RAI, nor common sense).

    If allowing a wizard to treat their robes as armor (which would allow them to attach the radiant, bluring, and other properties, as well as build up to +5 normally) is somehow OK for people from a balance perspective, then they can houserule that in to their own games, but it remains just that - a houserule. There is no text that supports the +1 robe, and while nipple pasties of charisma +6 are both RAW legal and thematically appropriate, +1 nipple pasties of freedom remain illegal (although still thematically appropriate).
    Homebrewiness!
    Base Classes: Blood Mage
    Prestige Classes: Trophy Hunter / Spellshatterer
    Miscellany: Permanency Support
    Resources:
    Alchemical Items/Special Materials List / E6 Magic Item List

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!
    Hmm, erikun has gotten me to rethink this a bit, and actually this does seem more reasonable. Agreed after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!
    I believe I'm confident enough in this to now register agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
    Much preferred to the original version; agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted
    Revision: Resistance to fire provides an equal amount of resistance to the fire damage caused by lava (in place of the lava 'immunity' currently written in the rules).
    Somehow I seem to have missed this on my previous run-through, but it is quite clearly a good change, so agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude
    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.)

    Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude
    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.)
    I do not presently know of any legitimate (non-abusive) use for 030A's reading, so I'm changing my previous abstention to disagree with that and agree with 030B.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 033: No Double Dipping
    Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.
    This seems ... hmm. Maybe a bit unnecessary? Generally the ways of gaining double Cha to saves, for example, require a lot of hoop-jumping, and while they are indeed more powerful, I don't necessarily see them as brokenly so. I could certainly see the point of houseruling it one way or another, but I'm not really sure there's any clear dictate from common sense to decide it.

    As mentioned previously, there are cases where the bonuses implicitly stack by their nature (Con to natural armor, Con to armor), cases where they explicitly do not stack (Monk/Ninja AC bonus), but no cases I'm aware of where they explicitly stack. However, the default would seem to be to treat them as an untyped bonus, which would stack.

    Anyway, upshot is that this seems a little dubious to me right now, both in scope and in conclusion, so I think I have to disagree pending further discussion.


    1

    Also a largely unrelated linguistic nitpick: the "yay" sound you make when formally agreeing with something is actually written out as "yea". No more typos please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

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

  16. - Top - End - #106
    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 Lonely Tylenol View Post
    It is, in fact, not "in the MiC somewhere". The rules that they are (erroneously) referring to are the "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" rules, found on the MiC p. 233, with a table on p. 234. The rules detailed there, as written, allow you to make a tube top of armor +1. They do not allow you to make a +1 tube top. The distinction is fine--both give a +1 armor bonus to Armor Class, which at face value looks the same--but the former is an item effect, while the latter is an armor enhancement. Further, the former is treated as a wondrous item, and the latter as a piece of armor. The practical implications of this difference are that you can have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an item effect that adds an enhancement value to your armor class, is regarded as a wondrous item, and cannot be enchanted as if it were armor (which is RAW, RAI, and common sense), but you cannot have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an armor enhancement increasing the value of its armor class, is regarded as armor, and can be enchanted normally as if it were armor with things like radiant, spearblock, blurring, and others (which is neither RAW, RAI, nor common sense).

    If allowing a wizard to treat their robes as armor (which would allow them to attach the radiant, bluring, and other properties, as well as build up to +5 normally) is somehow OK for people from a balance perspective, then they can houserule that in to their own games, but it remains just that - a houserule. There is no text that supports the +1 robe, and while nipple pasties of charisma +6 are both RAW legal and thematically appropriate, +1 nipple pasties of freedom remain illegal (although still thematically appropriate).
    Arms and Equipment Guide page 130. You can put armor special abilities on Bracers of Armors in a straight trade (For the same price as Bracers of armor +6 you could get +1 Bracers of Heavy Fortification) with a maximum enhancement value of +13 (so +1 and 12 points of armor special abilities).

    Technically it's perfectly legal as nothing newer overrides it.
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    Arms and Equipment Guide page 130. You can put armor special abilities on Bracers of Armors in a straight trade (For the same price as Bracers of armor +6 you could get +1 Bracers of Heavy Fortification) with a maximum enhancement value of +13 (so +1 and 12 points of armor special abilities).

    Technically it's perfectly legal as nothing newer overrides it.
    Verified RAW legal and conceded as such.

    Damn you, 3.0 splatbooks!

    I still don't think it makes sense.

    On the other hand, I guess this means I can wear nipple pasties of armor and freedom.
    Homebrewiness!
    Base Classes: Blood Mage
    Prestige Classes: Trophy Hunter / Spellshatterer
    Miscellany: Permanency Support
    Resources:
    Alchemical Items/Special Materials List / E6 Magic Item List

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    Verified RAW legal and conceded as such.

    Damn you, 3.0 splatbooks!

    I still don't think it makes sense.

    On the other hand, I guess this means I can wear nipple pasties of armor and freedom.
    This is actually an explicit example in one of the adult themed books (BoVD I think?) Alternate item slots to fit a darker theme, though I believe they used piercings rather than pasties.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lincoln, RI
    Gender
    Male

    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.
    Sorry if this is too nitpicky, but I can't find where the "unconscious" condition states "not aware of your surroundings". I think it's both RAMs and RAI, but it's not defined as such by RAW. I don't think a general dictionary definition necessarily applies as many defined game terms are quite different from a standard dictionary definition. I state this just point out the weirdness of RAW at times.

    Edit: I haven't made decisions on most of the points yet so I'm refraining from the agree/disagree element. I'm still trying to digest the comments about the rules I thought I was familiar with. The willing/unwilling debate has me seriously thinking and furiously referencing the PHB/SRD.
    Last edited by nyjastul69; 2012-04-23 at 10:57 PM.
    I used to be with 'it'. Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' and what 'it' is, is scary and weird. It'll happen to yooouuu. - Abraham Simpson, proud member of the Fighting Hellfish.

    Project NOAH is a very cool site for those interested in nature and/or photography. My spottings can be seen here.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Alas, the SRD entry on Unconscious is remarkably brief and uninformative.

    Unconscious

    Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
    Odd though that it calls out HP related unconsciousness but makes no mention of sleep, magical or otherwise, counting as unconscious.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lincoln, RI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TypoNinja View Post
    Alas, the SRD entry on Unconscious is remarkably brief and uninformative.



    Odd though that it calls out HP related unconsciousness but makes no mention of sleep, magical or otherwise, counting as unconscious.
    Unfortunately knocked out isn't a defined term. The nonlethal damage section of the PHB references unconscious and mentions 'knock out' and 'faint' but I can't find where the latter is defined. Comatose is a defined condition but doesn't really help. It's actually only defined in the PHB, I don't see it in the SRD. I can't quote it, but the best help there is the helpless condition. Kinda how I feel now.

    Edit:The sleep spell causes magical slumber, but I can't find in the SRD or PHB, what nonmagical slumber is. The DMG may contain rules on slumbering. I'm gonna check that next.
    Last edited by nyjastul69; 2012-04-23 at 11:52 PM.
    I used to be with 'it'. Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' and what 'it' is, is scary and weird. It'll happen to yooouuu. - Abraham Simpson, proud member of the Fighting Hellfish.

    Project NOAH is a very cool site for those interested in nature and/or photography. My spottings can be seen here.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Godskook's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Godskook, a fair amount of RACSD is going to be called RAI. The problem with calling it RAI is that you open up the debate about what the designer's intent is. RACSD avoids said debate by replacing "what I know the designer meant, because I had coffee wit him and asked him" with "what we think makes the most sense, and is probably RAI, but we can't confirm it for certain sure".
    So RACSD is RAI, except by community consensus. Then my first suggestion is that we change it to RCBC(Rules clarification by consent). It'll give the list a more "these are what the rules originally meant" feel rather the "we're blatantly houseruling 3.5" feeling that RACSD gives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    I was able to get "some" of your opinions for or against out of what you posted...please feel free to clarify, correct, and expand.
    Having gotten a better understanding of what you're going for, here's a new list:

    Rule 1: Agree
    Rule 2: Disagree cause it isn't common sense or clarification but rather blatantly changing the rules.
    Rule 3: Agree. If D&D were a computer game, this would've caused it to crash.
    Rule 4: Agree
    Rule 5: Agree
    Rule 6: Mixed. I refuse to agree until the wording is fixed to prevent giving additional attacks to monsters who already have natural weapons. Suggested new wording: "All creatures are proficient with the natural weapons they have available. All creatures with class levels are proficient with unarmed strike."
    Rule 7: Disapprove.
    Rule 8: Disagree
    Rule 9:
    Rule 10:
    Rule 11:

    Rule 12: Agree
    Rule 13: Agree
    Rule 14: I don't want to Disagree, but I don't think this offers anything useful and thus, shouldn't be included.
    Rule 15: @TIppy, when does this rule matter?
    Rule 16: Disagree
    Rule 17: Agree
    Rule 18: Agree
    Rule 19: Disagree, this is blatantly against RAW and RAI
    Rule 20: Disagree. This is an intentional point of balance in 3.5, imho. Changing it might be a good houserule, but I don't think that's the point of this thread, even still.
    Rule 21: Agree
    Rule 22: Agree
    Rule 23:
    Rule 24: *DISAGREE*, that is not only blatantly against the rules, but blatantly against the spirit of the rules. In its place, put "Open X Chakra Bind not only opens the chakra, but also grants an addtional chakra bind for that chakra." This is how the feat works for non-Meldshapers, and should be clarified to work that way for them too. Also, not a balance issue, since meldshapers usually have too many feats to buy anyway.
    Rule 25:
    Rule 26:

    Rule 27: Agree.
    Rule 28: Disagree. The wording is grossly poor, and allows access to things beyond what TO would normally allow.
    Rule 29: Abstain, but this seems more like houserule than what I get the impression this thread should be covering.
    Rule 30: Agree with 30B
    Rule 31: Agree
    Rule 32: Should be split into two portions. Agree that full-attacking should provoke attacks like standard actions. Disagree that only 1 AoO should be generated, since the "provoking action" is not the full attack, but rather the attack action.
    Rule 33: Disagree until someone can point to a single case where this is a problem.

    Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

    1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.

    2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

    *Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

    1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.
    Every proposal has had only 1-4 votes at some point. This would become "must receive 5 votes before the thread maintainer next logs on" if actually implemented. Which is rather unfair on the thread (and us all) if he logs on rarely, and rather unfair on him (and the nominated issue) if he logs on frequently.

    2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

    *Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.
    If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.
    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

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.
    Yeah, trying to bring in an explicit appeal to authority rubs me the wrong way too.

    Mob rule all the wa- I mean, well discussed opinions of both sides of an interpretation decided by community consesus FTW.

    I also like seeing the splits on some rules. At a glance seeing things like "nobody really disputed that" or "a couple of people disagree" provides a nice contrast with "wow, that's a 50/50 split."

    Someone might see their interpretation is hotly contested and realize it's not as clear as they thought.
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lincoln, RI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 001: For
    Rule 002: For
    Rule 003: For
    Rule 004: For
    Rule 005: For
    Rule 006: Against
    Rule 007: Against
    Rule 008: No opinion
    Rule 009: Removed
    Rule 010: For
    Rule 011: For
    Rule 012: Against
    Rule 013: For
    Rule 014: For
    Rule 015: No opinion
    Rule 016: Against
    Rule 017: For
    Rule 018: For
    Rule 019: Against
    Rule 020: For
    Rule 021: Against
    Rule 022: For
    Rule 023: Against
    Rule 024: No opinion
    Rule 025: For
    Rule 026: Against
    Rule 027: For
    Rule 028: For
    Rule 029: No opinion
    Rule 030 a&b: No opinion
    Rule 031: For
    Rule 032: Against
    Rule 033: Against

    Edited to avoid consecutive posts:
    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.
    We would need a separate thread/poll to determine 'resident experts'. I would not necessarily agree with all of your suggestions and I would add a few that you missed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this suggestion. I think this thread has value because it's a crowdsourcing free for all.
    Last edited by nyjastul69; 2012-04-24 at 01:58 AM.
    I used to be with 'it'. Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' and what 'it' is, is scary and weird. It'll happen to yooouuu. - Abraham Simpson, proud member of the Fighting Hellfish.

    Project NOAH is a very cool site for those interested in nature and/or photography. My spottings can be seen here.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Godskook's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    Every proposal has had only 1-4 votes at some point. This would become "must receive 5 votes before the thread maintainer next logs on" if actually implemented. Which is rather unfair on the thread (and us all) if he logs on rarely, and rather unfair on him (and the nominated issue) if he logs on frequently.
    See, there's got to be at least some method of quality control other than "well, someone suggested it", that prevents situations that have already started happening. I prefer this one to the second suggestion I posited, primarily cause there's no risk of accidentally offending anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.
    It'd be more helpful if you stated why it bothered you, rather than just threatening to leave if it were implemented.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyjastul69 View Post
    We would need a separate thread/poll to determine 'resident experts'. I would not necessarily agree with all of your suggestions and I would add a few that you missed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this suggestion. I think this thread has value because it's a crowdsourcing free for all.
    1.My list of 'experts' wasn't meant to be complete, but rather a good but short sampling of community members who actually know 3.5's ruleset incredibly well. I had every expectation that others would add to such a list.

    2.Wasn't trying to stop the crowdsourcing, just stop the 1-vote wonders which can destroy the value of a project like this. Lack of peer-review is why so many here shy away from homebrew on DandDwiki. I'm not dead-set on either suggestion I put forth, but I do think something should be implemented to determine what qualifies as "worthy of making the list".
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    So RACSD is RAI, except by community consensus. Then my first suggestion is that we change it to RCBC(Rules clarification by consent). It'll give the list a more "these are what the rules originally meant" feel rather the "we're blatantly houseruling 3.5" feeling that RACSD gives.
    I am not really opposed to this idea, but don't entirely see the need either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    (assorted votes)
    I'd appreciate seeing some more of your reasoning for the various rules changes you disagreed with (as well as perhaps those you agreed with ); I think it would tend to help discussion a good bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

    1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.
    This might not be a horrible change, but honestly I think simply including the numbers for and against in the list headers, or just the total votes counted, would be better. I do not think it makes sense to keep new suggestions out of the indexing post until they're fully accepted, because then there's a good chance people will miss them.

    It's obviously important to avoid giving a false impression of unanimity, but it's also important to make it easy for a good suggestion to be accepted -- or at least noticed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

    *Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.
    I don't plan to drop from the thread, but here again I think this is a bit too draconian, as it were; I respect Tippy, Curmudgeon, Djinn, Shneekey, and others, but I do not think it is necessary to filter everything through them. If you want to continue with this idea, I'd suggest making a companion thread as a sort of "authenticated" version, although honestly that sounds like too much work for relatively little gain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

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

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    How about this idea, instead:

    Once a rule reaches a large number of votes (30-40 votes or so) and is approved, it enters a "playground errata", where it the rule becomes an offical Rule As Common Sense Dictates.
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morph Bark's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Freljord

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

    I am for Rules 001, 002, 007, 008, 012, 015 (but I think sleeping targets should get a Will penalty), 016, 018, 022, 023.

    I am against Rules 010, 011.
    Strawberries = awesome avatarist.
    Current Projects:
    EMPIRE! -- A Community World-Building Game full of role-playing and strategy
    Analyzing RPG Systems
    Spoiler
    Show
    Campaign setting! Homebrew Tier Compendium! NPCs!
    FanFiction.net | DeviantART | Homebrewer's Signature

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.
    So would I, and thank you, Ashtagon, for addressing this, because without your outspoken response, I might have missed it.

    The reasons being:

    I thought this was a democratic process and a joint project. I like this approach, and I think it usually delivers the best results.

    Also, the "experts'" reading of RAW is one of the reasons this thread exists.

    If I'd agree with Tippy on RAI, I'd have no reason to be here, because I already would have won the game.

    And because I think I would not enjoy winning the same game over and over again (especially not with the same or similar means: Ice Assassin Mindrape, I am looking at you), I would have moved on to other games.

Posting Permissions

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