Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #121
    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)

    General Comment:

    The headline should be rephrased as:

    Rule 123: Fighters Can Jump (currently approved 85% - 17/20)

    Indicating the number of votes as well as the percentage should give a better idea of the level of consensus involved.

    There's no need to have a "playground errata". People can decide for their own group which rules be used, based on whatever criteria they choose.

    The reason we should not have specific named individuals to "approve" of an idea is because it goes against the democratic ideal of this thread, and there is almost certainly no consensus on what the final list of "authorities" should be. I am fairly certain that my vote should be considered an authority, a feeling I am certain that is shared by very few here. I am confident that many others here have similar feelings about their own opinion.

    On with the voting...

    #12 - A lot of people who voted against seem to be of the impression that you can take a random scrap of clothing and enchant it, essentially for free. The intention I had was that it would still be subject to the usual rules for enchanting armour - it would still have to be a masterwork piece of clothing, and something that at least nominally covers the same areas that a regular piece of standard armour would cover 9upper body, essentially).

    #16 Agree

    #18 Agree

    #19 Disagree. This is pretty much RAW. A creature with a slam attack that could use a weapon loses his slam attack anyway. The issue never comes up with slam-attacking creatures that can't use weapons. This is just words for the sake of words, and assimilating it will just cause confusion.

    #20 Agree, but with a caveat that only one of the two held implements can be considered your primary attack, and all others are off-hand attacks.

    #24 We need page references.

    #25 Agree

    #26 Agree

    #27 Agree

    #28 Agree

    #29 Disagree. It may be a good idea, but there's no sign this was an intended feature of the class. We could probably find dozens of small exceptions like this if we searched, but none of the others were written in either.

    #30a and #30b I'm either looking on the wrong page of ToB, or the Aptitude ability I'm reading has no relation to the text of these two proposals.

    #31 Agree

    #32 Disagree. If you spend a full round shooting off arrows while a sword guy is in your face, you deserve everything you get. You're demonstrably not taking advantage of your weapon's best feature. Note that most people only get to make one aoo per round anyway (unless they have that feat), regardless of how many opportunities present themselves in that round.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-24 at 06:14 AM.
    Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
    Blue is strictly for emphasis.
    And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

    Avatar by The Succubus

  2. - Top - End - #122
    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 Godskook View Post
    Rule 19: Disagree, this is blatantly against RAW and RAI
    Can you please please please explain to me how RAW would handle this, because I'm trying to follow RAW (or rather RA(not)W) as I see it implemented in the Monster Manual:

    1) Giants, large elementals, and humanoid constructs get two slam attacks. This is straight-up RAW from the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm."
    2) They lose these attacks in their stat blocks when wielding manufactured weapons.
    3) A medium-sized humanoid with a slam (Warforged, Doppelganger) is wielding a two-handed weapon. By RAW, what happens to his slam attack?

    If you want straight-up RAW, by the stat block, a Warforged loses his slam attack (and does not get it as a secondary attack) if he's wielding a spear (two-handed weapon).

    The best example I can find of a medium-sized humanoid that keeps its slam attack is the Sample Woodling in MM3, which keeps its slam as a secondary attack when wielding a scimitar (one-handed weapon).

    So... I fail to see how what I've written is "blatantly against RAW and RAI". As far as I can tell, my text matches pretty much every stat block I can find in the MM1-5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    #19 Disagree. This is pretty much RAW. A creature with a slam attack that could use a weapon loses his slam attack anyway.
    Please show me the RAW where it says this.

    Yes, it's confusing, but we have no rules that say anything about when you "lose" the ability to attack with a natural weapon. Ok, fine, slams + melee weapons are kind of a corner case that doesn't come up often, but it could definitely use some clarification.

    We have RAW that says large-sized humanoids with slam attacks use their arms. Rule 018 covers those, arms occupied = no slam attacks. How do we address the slam attacks for medium-sized and smaller?

  3. - Top - End - #123
    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 Darrin View Post
    Can you please please please explain to me how RAW would handle this, because I'm trying to follow RAW (or rather RA(not)W) as I see it implemented in the Monster Manual:

    1) Giants, large elementals, and humanoid constructs get two slam attacks. This is straight-up RAW from the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm."
    2) They lose these attacks in their stat blocks when wielding manufactured weapons.
    3) A medium-sized humanoid with a slam (Warforged, Doppelganger) is wielding a two-handed weapon. By RAW, what happens to his slam attack?

    If you want straight-up RAW, by the stat block, a Warforged loses his slam attack (and does not get it as a secondary attack) if he's wielding a spear (two-handed weapon).

    The best example I can find of a medium-sized humanoid that keeps its slam attack is the Sample Woodling in MM3, which keeps its slam as a secondary attack when wielding a scimitar (one-handed weapon).

    So... I fail to see how what I've written is "blatantly against RAW and RAI".
    By RAW, giants lose both slam attacks if they use a manufactured weapon, even if that is a one-handed weapon (and by logical extension, especially if it is a two-handed weapon).

    Warforged get a slam or a manufactured weapon attack by the MM3 entry. There's no reason they should retain any kind of slam attack when not even giants with their two slam attacks (when unarmed) get a slam attack (when armed).

    You're creating extra words where none are necessary, and potentially creating a loophole that could be exploited somewhere.

    The sample woodling looks to be a proof reading error. The "creatinga woodling" sections says:

    Attack: ... ... A woodling armed with a weapon uses its slam or a weapon, as it desires.
    Note "slam or a weapon", not "slam and a weapon".
    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

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    By RAW, giants lose both slam attacks if they use a manufactured weapon, even if that is a one-handed weapon (and by logical extension, especially if it is a two-handed weapon).
    Cite, please.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    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 Szar_Lakol View Post
    Cite, please.
    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbi...naturalWeapons

    Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
    I withdraw my previous statements.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-24 at 07:03 AM.
    Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
    Blue is strictly for emphasis.
    And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

    Avatar by The Succubus

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

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

    You can always see how many people voted for a particular idea, so if only one person has noted, you can tell that it doesn't really have much support. You should usually be able to see the rationale behind proposing a rule.

    In any event, more votes:

    #24 -- Chakra Binds Are Not Free: Extremely downvoted. The entire point of the feat is to make chakra binds available to characters who don't get them from their character class -- MoI even suggests permitting the feats without using the character classes if you're introducing the book into an ongoing game.

    #33 -- No Double Dipping: Upvoted.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-04-24 at 08:23 AM.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    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.
    You can't assign handedness in the middle of a round. This is an unsupported statement so please supply a source for that interpretation.
    The logical consequence of that assumption is that you can then get the extra attack from TWF without ever using the second weapon, or using the other end of a double weapon. This is clearly not RAI nor RAW.

    I'm not able to post more fully at this time.

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

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

    Only answering those questions I am familiar with:

    1) yes,
    2) yes,
    3) yes,
    4) yes,
    5) yes,
    6) yes,

    11) yes,
    12) yes,
    13) yes,
    14) yes,
    15) yes,

    17) yes,
    18) yes,

    20) yes,
    21) yes,

    28) yes.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    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 Gwendol View Post
    You can't assign handedness in the middle of a round. This is an unsupported statement so please supply a source for that interpretation.
    If you have a weapon in either hand, per the SRD: "you can strike with either weapon first". There is nothing in the rules that says you can't switch weapons on your subsequent attacks.

    Technically, Keld has no RAW support for this interpretation on switching primaries, but you are equally unsupported when you insist that you can't switch in the middle of the round. Most of the game designers (including Skip Williams) and nearly everyone else on the planet assumes that you can switch primaries between iterative attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwendol View Post
    The logical consequence of that assumption is that you can then get the extra attack from TWF without ever using the second weapon, or using the other end of a double weapon. This is clearly not RAI nor RAW.
    I'm confused. So now you're saying if you never switch your primary weapon, you can get an extra attack from TWF? Huh?

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rulle 002 : Nope. Arcane Thesis means your character has just so much experience with the spell, that adding the very easy metamagics actually makes it easier to cast. To me, it's logical.

    I understand very well the opposite opinion, and yes, it's abusing the rules. But by RAW, it works, and it CAN be justified in fluff.


    For "twice Wis to AC", I'd let it. Multiclass Paladins can get to add their Cha to saves twice. (Can't remember how, but possible.) So I'd let Monk/Swordsages have it. They need all the help they can get!
    Last edited by Cor1; 2012-04-24 at 09:40 AM.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Dew View Post
    Hey! Birth is a wonderful, beautiful thing! If the father is watching at the right time, he gets to see the baby's head emerge from the birth canal with the brains squashing out through the cracks in baby's skull, held in only by skin!
    I'm posting for the first time after months of self-imposed exile to say that I hate you for this message.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Godskook's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

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

    @Darrin, no time for a full post, but "this is what the stat-blocks say" is not a legit argument. I mean, just look at the number of errors in stat-blocks of the "example character" sections in the books for prestige classes.
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Handedness still exists in 3.5. The off-hand is defined on page 311 of the PHB as the "weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; any attacks made with the off-hand takes a -4 penalty to attacks and only adds ½ your Str modifier. (Two-Weapon Fighting only removes the attack penalty while TWFing, not in any other circumstances.) It normally only comes up in conjunction with TWF, but it most certainly still exists.

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location

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

    Adding the rules that came after I last chimed in:

    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox: Agree.

    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Agree.

    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Undecided at the moment. I can see arguments in both directions. Making a save against a mind-effecting spell already seems like an unconscious rather than a conscious action - you don't even have to be aware of being a target to make a saving throw, after all. It's something that I don't think there's a clear common-sense line for, so I'll leave this one Undecided and note that I think it's a case where I'd expect most DMs to have their own rulings on how it works because using the RAW isn't necessarily satisfactory.

    Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?: Disagree. While Tower Shields need clarification/alteration, I don't think this is the clarification they need. RACSD might say, for example, that any opponent who would have a flanking bonus against a Tower Shield user bypasses Total Cover in the process. (Not formally suggesting that, just saying that this proposal doesn't cover a common-sense interpretation to me.)

    Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Approve.

    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Approve.

    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: Approve. This one makes sense to me.

    Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!: Approve. I don't see a problem with it.

    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Approve for lack of a better option. This is something that I'd rather see handled as a full-on house rule for consistency - either disallow permanently enchanting ammunition and let spells like Magic Weapon affect bundles of ammo, or make magic ammunition always survive an attack but cost normal price, or something - but failing that disallowing discounts on non-attack-enchantments makes sense.

    Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No: Approve.

    Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Approve.

    Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free: Disagree. The feat itself says that you can now bind a soulmeld; the intent seems clear that the goal is to allow an ability that did not previously exist. And common sense seems to indicate that a feat which only works if you had a specific class ability already would just have that ability as a prerequisite.

    Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted:Approve.

    Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats : No opinion.

    Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous: Approve.

    Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified: No opinion.

    Rule 029: WhiplashNo opinion.

    Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude: Not sure I understand this one.

    Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude: Again, not sure I understand this one.

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

    Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: No opinion.

    Rule 033: No Double Dipping: No opinion.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Phaederkiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

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

    tippy: You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?
    Easy. You can dream.And fighting something in your dreams is an absolutely time-honoured trope of fantasy.

    And, having been choked out more than once: yes you dream while you are unconcious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    As a house rule, I would say being unconscious means you are automatically willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells.
    This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

    this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    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 Phaederkiel View Post
    Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    As a house rule, I would say being unconscious means you are automatically willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells.


    This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

    this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.
    Note that I said willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells. Poison is not a spell, so you get your normal saving throws against it.
    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

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lapak View Post
    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Undecided at the moment. I can see arguments in both directions. Making a save against a mind-effecting spell already seems like an unconscious rather than a conscious action - you don't even have to be aware of being a target to make a saving throw, after all. It's something that I don't think there's a clear common-sense line for, so I'll leave this one Undecided and note that I think it's a case where I'd expect most DMs to have their own rulings on how it works because using the RAW isn't necessarily satisfactory.
    I think it is RAW, but ambiguous. But my main point is that allowing saves while unconscious has few negative impacts on a game, while disallowing them opens the door wide for abuse.

    Example: Powerful PC (or NPC) with a lot of excellent defenses and a very high will save, possibly with regeneration. Apply a lot of nonlethal damage. PC falls unconscious. Apply mindrape (or charm, dominate, etc.)... Game over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaederkiel
    This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

    this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.
    I think the easiest way is to give them a save all the time.

    RAW defines the unconscious condition as helpless (the SRD even hyperlinks it). The helpless condition entry also includes unconscious in its text and back-references to it. So, mechanically, by RAW, unconscious = helpless.

    Also, the paragraph that is often used to justify unconscious targets would be willing, specifically states it refers to spells that only work on willing targets, right in its introduction.

    I think this is plain RAW.

    I completely agree that you should be allowed saves against poison. You can even do Reflex saves when you are helpless (albeit at Dex 0).

    In avoiding to create a huge list of exceptions (and trying to apply more real-world logic), I think the easiest solution is to just allow the save.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 11:39 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    I think it is RAW, but ambiguous. But my main point is that allowing saves while unconscious has few negative impacts on a game, while disallowing them opens the door wide for abuse.

    Example: Powerful PC (or NPC) with a lot of excellent defenses and a very high will save, possibly with regeneration. Apply a lot of nonlethal damage. PC falls unconscious. Apply mindrape (or charm, dominate, etc.)... Game over.
    This is not abuse, but exactly how the game functions.

    Also note that the vast majority of charm spells have redundancy saves, for when you are asked to do something "against your nature".

  18. - Top - End - #138
    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 Godskook View Post
    @Darrin, no time for a full post, but "this is what the stat-blocks say" is not a legit argument. I mean, just look at the number of errors in stat-blocks of the "example character" sections in the books for prestige classes.
    Fine. Granted.

    But I have yet to see someone explain to me how my fix is "blatantly against RAW and RAI".

    Has no one played any warforged? When did you or when did you not get your slam attack?

    We're supposed to be patching holes in the rules with common sense. By RAW and/or Common Sense, we know:

    1) Large humanoid-shaped creatures with slam attacks use their arms. They generally get two slam attacks, one for each arm, unless they are wielding a two-handed weapon. As far as I know, no one disputes this. We don't know exactly what happens by RAW when only one arm is occupied, but common sense would suggest they could wield a one-handed weapon and still get a slam with the other arm.

    2) Slam attacks where a creature of any size has no appendages generally appear on oozes and some other oddball creatures, and they typically use a "pseudopod" or some portion of their amorphous body to attack with. They generally don't have any way to wield a manufactured weapon, but in any case no one is arguing about these guys.

    Between those two, there's a small gap with a handful of medium-sized and smaller humanoid-shaped creatures that have a single slam attack, but we have no indication by RAW when they "lose" that attack. I see two distinct alternatives: they lose it if their arms are occupied (which fits more closely to the "slam = arm" thing from the MM), or they always have it as a knee/elbow/headbutt/etc. (the "unarmed strike" approach).

    I concede that what I wrote was too convoluted and wordy, but what's the best "common sense" way to fill that gap?

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Slam attacks are made with an appendage if any are available. It depends on precisely how the slam attack you receive is worded.

    For the vast majority of situations, it's likely to be an attack with an arm. If it is with an arm, they lose it when that arm is occupied, just as any other natural weapon.

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Phaederkiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

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

    Note that I said willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells. Poison is not a spell, so you get your normal saving throws against it.
    okay, bad example. But anything that you are able to repell by physis alone should definetively get the save.

    In avoiding to create a huge list of exceptions (and trying to apply more real-world logic), I think the easiest solution is to just allow the save.
    Am I seeing it right: there are two points to the debate:

    a) Is the helpless creature hindered in making the save?


    and

    b) can a unconscious creature still chose not to save against things she wants to be affected by?


    with b2) where is the border? When an disguised badguy tries to dimension door unconscious you 400ft upwards, do you know the teleportation target and can choose to resist or do you not? This will probably reveal a lot of spells as sloppy written. I mean, this is not even an issue of being unconscious or not.

    I think it is needed to talk about the two points seperately. Even if you do not agree with malacheis opinion on a), perhaps you could opine on b)?

    and b2) probably is a problem all on its own: when am I willing? and how much do I know about a spell i do not cast?

  21. - Top - End - #141
    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)

    Helpless is not unconscious. The rules specifically call out that an unconscious (and not a sleeping, helpless, or otherwise disabled character) character is always willing. The rules also state that a willing creature gets no save against spells.

    RAW, if you are unconscious (between -1 and -9 HP or have more nonlethal damage than HP) you don't get a save against magic.

    If you are unconscious you also become helpless, but you can be helpless without being unconscious.
    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.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    It does say that helpless conscious creatures are not automatically willing.

    If someone casts the Poison spell on an unconscious guy- do they automatically fail the save? -

    because it's a spell, not "real" poison by the "Unconscious characters automatically fail all saves vs spells because they are "willing" logic?
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    This is not abuse, but exactly how the game functions.
    Part of the reason that I like this thread is that I've never found RAW compelling as an argument. In a computer RPG, if I discover that running away from an enemy causes him to get stuck on part of the scenery and unable to fight back? It is certainly 'exactly how the game functions,' but it's called a bug, or an exploit, or abuse. Similarly, if three different writers working on two different books - one writing a specific spell, another writing about special cases of how spells function in general, and another writing a general game rule about conditions that aren't specific to spells - happen to create a rules-state that doesn't make sense and/or is destructive to the gameplay or setting, I'm perfectly willing to call that a mistake even absent an explicit statement of intent by the authors. In the context of forum discussion, it often makes sense to use RAW for a common context, but in a common sense debate I don't know that it's relevant.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Nyarai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Female

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

    I really want to vote Yes on #15, but that's for a more selfish reason than out of consideration of the rules. (Some schmuck wanted to teleport sleeping targets out of their tents in the night with no save. I tried to explain to him 1. why this was really bending the rules and 2. why it'd be bad news when the evil wizards learned his new trick, but to no avail. )

    @Ham: I could swear that the unconscious = willing only applied to Will saves, and Poison is a Fort save. Am I mistaken on that one?

    Somehow, I feel like it would help a lot if there were a distinction between "willing" and "unable to resist." Could prevent a lot of the abuse of spells that require willing targets, while still allowing Harmful spells to go through sans save. I have no clue what to do about delivering heals, buffs, debuff removal to unconscious allies.
    Welcome to the Masquerade...

    Spoiler
    Show
    River Tam avatar by Strawberries


  25. - Top - End - #145
    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 hamishspence View Post
    It does say that helpless conscious creatures are not automatically willing.

    If someone casts the Poison spell on an unconscious guy- do they automatically fail the save? -

    because it's a spell, not "real" poison by the "Unconscious characters automatically fail all saves vs spells because they are "willing" logic?
    No. All the spell does is infect the creature with a poison. They make their save against poison as they would against any other poison.
    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.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    While it comes right after "some spells restrict you to willing targets only" Tippy's argument seems to be that it's a universal rule- which would mean it applies to each and every spell.

    Knock someone unconscious and they'd be a prime target for Disintegrate or Slay Living, even if they have a massive Fort save.


    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    No. All the spell does is infect the creature with a poison. They make their save against poison as they would against any other poison.

    It's a spell. And not an instantaneous Conjuration Creation spell (which creates nonmagical matter, that won't disappear in an anti magic field) but a necromancy spell. Why would it be the sole exception to all those Fort Save spells that, by your interpretation, the character would get no save against?
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2012-04-24 at 12:40 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  27. - Top - End - #147
    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)

    In game it really doesn't change much. If you are unconscious then you are already screwed. For the spells that are a real threat (Mindrape comes to mind), they only become available at high levels and then you should already have defenses and contingencies in place. Mind Blank is still up.

    If you are unconscious you have already lost, because you can be kept unconscious indefinitely without any problem.
    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.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Ok, first the "Clothes as Armor" issue. I've done some serious research into the two cited locations, and I think I have a new RACSD to cover it. As it covers much the same ground as Rule 012, I'm going to go ahead and close it out in favor of this revised rule.


    Rule 034: Armored Outfits

    Clarification/Combination: An entire SET of clothing (such as an Explorer's outfit) can be enhanced as a protective item. Such a set of clothing is considered to occupy the Body slot (as would armor or robes), and can be given an armor bonus in the same manner as Bracers of Armor (with the same limitations and benefits), with a maximum (pre-epic) bonus of +8. Either Bracers of Armor OR "Armored Clothing" can also be given up to 5 "plus equivalent" armor enhancements, as well as +GP enhancements, subject to the standard Epic cap. Note that clothing enhanced in such a manner is not "armor", does not count against class features that forbid the wearing of armor, and the bonus granted is itself an Armor bonus, not an Encancement bonus TO armor (again, as per the rules for Bracers of Armor). Please reference A&E 130 AND MIC 233.


    The Arms & Equipment Guide component:

    The sidebar on page 130 lays out the rules for putting armor enhancements (Both the +GP amount kind and the +# kind). It's clearly permissible as per those rules, though it's also odd in that it's limited to a maximum of 5 "plusses" worth...you can have Bracers of Armor +8 of Heavy Fortification (a +5 bonus), but you cannot have Bracers of Armor +4 of Invulnerability and Heavy Fortification, even though it's still under the total "+13" limit. The +8 armor limit and the +5 "other plusses" bonuses limits are separate.


    The Magic Item Compendium component:

    The section on "adding common item effects to existing items" and subsequent table on page 234 lists adding an Armor Bonus (Note: Not an Enhancement bonus TO Armor) to a body slot occupying item. Thus, much like the Arms slot (also shown in the table) can allow for adding a +Armor item (bracers of armor), a Body slot item (such as Robes) can do likewise...and there is precident as well in the form of Robes of the Archmagi and the like.


    The "Interpretation" component:

    In order to prevent things from waxing absurd with bras and loincloths of +8 Armor (though by the rules, only one such item could be worn, as it would thus occupy the "body" slot, and prevent others from being used just like any other conflict of slot), I've added one bit that is my interpretation of the rules...what constitutes clothing.

    The Player's Handbook doesn't define individual articles of clothing. Instead, "clothing" belongs to entire full outfits (see PHB 129, clothing chart). So if one wanted to grant an armor bonus, or subsequently add extra armor enhancements onto an armor-bonus-granting clothing item occupying the body slot, it would thus apply to a full outfit, not a single shirt, pants, tunic, bra, skirt, or other altogether too modest (or immodest) individual scrap of cloth.

    Thus, +4 Radiant Cleric's Vestments are a legal, legit choice that grants a +4 armor bonus, as would be a +5 Improved Shadow Woodwalk Traveler's Outfit.

    If individual DM's needs somehow require a +5 Loincloth of Moderate Fortification, then presumably individual DMs could just as easily define a "Gladiator's Outfit" as needed.


    -----------------------------


    I've revised Rule 033 slightly to clarify that it only applies if the bonuses granted are of the same type or are typeless, but even as such, I don't know if it'll get much traction. It seems this is entirely normal and acceptable at a lot of tables.

    My take here is that the various means (take for example Wis to AC from Monk and Wis to AC from Ninja..yes I know they're explicitly called out as non-combining). The concept, to me, is that each gives the ability to add Wisdom to AC. Being given that ability twice over doesn't mean that you get 2x your wisdom...you get granted the same 1x ability from both sources.



    Darrin, I see where you're going with it and have reworded #19 accordingly, and withdrawn my opposition.



    Godskook, no rule here (save for those removed) is "decided". The status of a given rule changes back and forth as the participants in this thread weigh in. Until it is "closed" at some theoretical future date, the fact that a given thread has only 2-4 "votes" is irrelevant. What's more, since it's tracked in the open, it's easy enough for anyone else to tell that a given item has received little discussion and consensus...or considerable.

    And while Rule 002 is definately a change, not an intepretation, I disagree that it isn't common sense...I wouldn't have put it FORWARD if I didn't feel it was common sense that you can't make a spell easier to cast by putting MORE metamagic on it.


    As nobody has come forward in favor of "Loose Aptitude" (formerly Rule 030A), it has been removed, and rule 030B (Strict Aptitude) is now simply Rule 030.


    I appreciate the suggestions for revising the rules of the thread, and the format it is presented in. I am considering ways to make this more intuitive and helpful, while at the same time making it managable on my end. Minor shift of format added to give it as:
    (currently approved 100% of 22)


    Szar Lakol...I take your comment on handedness as an "against" for Rule 014 (and a persuasive argument for why I should do the same). Please let me know if I've misinterpreted.


    General request...while I appreciate those who are taking the time to weigh in with your take on various items...I'd also greatly appreciate adding a bit more of your reasoning behind them, particularly if you're taking a contrary point of view. If at all possible, please tell us why you've decided how you have.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Nyarai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    The rules also state that a willing creature gets no save against spells.
    Do you have the text for that? I can only search the SRD with any kind of speed, so all I found was this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw
    A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.
    Which seems to require the creature to actively reject the opportunity to save.
    Welcome to the Masquerade...

    Spoiler
    Show
    River Tam avatar by Strawberries


  30. - Top - End - #150
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    If you are unconscious you have already lost, because you can be kept unconscious indefinitely without any problem.
    I'm thinking more in terms of bad guys taking out (or taking over) PCs who have been knocked unconscious, while the rest of the party is still up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nyarai View Post
    Do you have the text for that?
    Page 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell, subsection "Target or Targets"

    "Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target can be done any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't 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, paralysed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

    Here, in the SRD:

    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...argetorTargets
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2012-04-24 at 12:48 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

Posting Permissions

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