Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    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?
    Because it's instantaneous and specifically only infects you with a poison. It then follows the rules for a poison; an immediate save against the initial damage and then a later secondary save.

    The see text bit after the duration and save lines is relevant.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

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

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

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyarai View Post
    Do you have the text for that? I can only search the SRD with any kind of speed, so all I found was this.



    Which seems to require the creature to actively reject the opportunity to save.
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Target or Targets

    Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

    If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

    Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
    Malachei's argument is that that applies only to spells that are "willing only", mine is that being willing isn't something that applies to just spells that only effect willing targets (see voluntarily giving up a saving throw)
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    "Unconscious creatures automatically get no save against any spell that allows a save"

    If it's RAW- who thinks it needs changing?
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Taelas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    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.
    Yes, after researching the matter, I've changed my mind. You have me listed twice at the moment; I initially voted For, but that is more of a house rule than anything.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    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.
    This claim is not correct. In fact, the RAW explicitly explain unconscious by linking to helpless and the always willing clause applies only to spells that only affect willing targets. Repeating the opposite over and over again does not make it right.

    Also, this is about RAI and there's a solution (rule 15). You're free to vote against it if you wish to keep ignoring the evidence.

    IMO, you're only fighting this because your tricks rely on reading it differently (ignoring the paragraph's first sentence). Rule 15 will reduce mindrape abuse.

    Tippy's "trick" in this case is focusing your attention to the bolded part of the text he cited above. The full text is one paragraph and reads:

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
    Reading the whole text it becomes obvious, as it is given as one paragraph. There's another before, and another after it -> it is a paragraph and its statements are in context of the first sentence.

    It is obvious that the first part is the introduction to the rest of the paragraph/section. Only by ignoring the first sentence and arbitrarily taking out a sentence from the paragraph can the meaning be applied to all spells. Unfortunately, game designers also have to use puncutuation marks. To protect against Tippy, they'd need to make endless sentences, or he just takes out whichever part he likes to use and neglects the rest of a section.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 01:14 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The New Mexico Wastelands
    Gender
    Male

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

    Magic vestment, a core spell in the PHB, states that it can give normal clothing can be given an enhancement bonus to armor.

    It seems really weird to me that such a basic spell can perform this effect, but no magic item ever printed can replicate it.

    It seems to me like you should be able to, but barring that, couldn't you just find some way to make magic vestment permanent or give it an obscenely long duration? DMM persist for example?

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    A willing creature is anyone that has 1) chosen to give up their save or 2) is unconcious.

    A spell that restricts you to willing only creatures only works if the creature is willing (thus has either chosen to give up their save or is unconscious).

    Willing is basically a flag on the creature targeted, if it's set to 'yes' then the creature get's no save. If it's set to 'no' then the creature gets a save (or the spell automatically doesn't work).

    That flag only gets set to yes if the creature chooses to make it so or is unconscious.

    This is RAW.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

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

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

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Unconscious creatures automatically get no save against any spell that allows a save"

    If it's RAW- who thinks it needs changing?
    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...m#aimingASpell

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

    The above is RAW.

    It says nothing about saving throws, only about whether you can be a target at all. If you are conscious, you are a living (or undead, or constructed, or...) creature, and can choose whether or not you are willing for any given spell. If you are unconscious, you are automatically considered a willing target where it matters.

    The saving throw section does not indicate anything to the effect that a willing target has to forego their saving throw. You can be a "willing target" and still roll your saving throw.

    So let's look at some of the example spells in the light of RAW...

    dimension door: Only affects willing (including unconscious) targets. Only magical objects and attended objects can receive a saving throw. Unconscious characters by RAW don't have that option. There is a corner case here of an unconscious character who has some magical equipment.

    charm person: Affects one creature, willing or not, and a save applies. Being unconscious affects this spell in no way at all.

    dominate person/monster: Same as charm person.

    poison, destruction, disintegrate: Also unaffected by being unconscious as per RAW.

    water breathing: Presumably cast by tritons to kidnap an unconscious PC from the beach party fight. It affects a living creature, whether willing or not, but he gets a save, which he can choose to either roll or automatically fail, independently of whether or not he is a "willing target".

    I'm not sure what the solution here is anymore. Being a willing target isn't the deal breaker some made it out to be. Otoh, it allows some weird tactics while denying some obvious ones.

    However, I did notice something weird... If you are unconscious or otherwise helpless, you can still attempt a Reflex saving throw, albeit with the -5 penalty for having zero dexterity.

    Rule xxx: Dodging While Asleep
    If you are helpless, you automatically fail any Reflex saving throw.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The New Mexico Wastelands
    Gender
    Male

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

    Page 177 of the PHB says a willing creature can also lower any "special resistances" they have to a spell.

    If you rule that any unconscious creature also forgoes their save, wouldn't they also count as lowering their resistances? Thus, wouldn't mind blank or any other form of spell resistance or immunity from a spell, item, class, or race not function while a character is unconscious?

    I wonder how far that extends, RAW or RAI. Could you, for example, burn an unwilling or unconscious fire elemental to death with fire ball?

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Page 177 of the PHB says a willing creature can also lower any "special resistances" they have to a spell.

    If you rule that any unconscious creature also forgoes their save, wouldn't they also count as lowering their resistances? Thus, wouldn't mind blank or any other form of spell resistance or immunity from a spell, item, class, or race not function while a character is unconscious?

    I wonder how far that extends, RAW or RAI. Could you, for example, burn an unwilling or unconscious fire elemental to death with fire ball?
    That applies only to spell resistance. Nothing else.

    @Ashtagon
    Go look at voluntarily giving up a saving throw, if you are willing you don't get one.
    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.

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Nyarai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    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).
    I did read that, but I didn't see anything that explicitly states "no saves for you, ever."

    Aaaaaand... ninjaed by Ashtagon.
    River Tam avatar by Strawberries

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The New Mexico Wastelands
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    That applies only to spell resistance. Nothing else.

    @Ashtagon
    Go look at voluntarily giving up a saving throw, if you are willing you don't get one.
    No it isn't, the example it gives is an elf's racial resistance to sleep spells, which is a flat out immunity, not spell resistance.

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    That applies only to spell resistance. Nothing else.

    @Ashtagon
    Go look at voluntarily giving up a saving throw, if you are willing you don't get one.
    Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

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

    Nope. RAW disagrees. A willing creature can choose to give up their saving throw, but they certainly aren't required to do so.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    And rule 15 saves lives.

    Allowing unconscious creatures saves will lead to less PC deaths, which is a good thing (and a smaller number of mindrapes, as well, which is a good thing).
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 01:45 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    No it isn't, the example it gives is an elf's racial resistance to sleep spells, which is a flat out immunity, not spell resistance.
    Oh, that. I would rule it differently from unconscious being willing (you have to choose to suppress the ability and nothing calls out that you automatically do so, unlike being unconscious in regards to saving throws).
    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.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

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

    In light of the above RAW, I'd now like to state a houserule I'm considering...

    An unconscious character is by default considered an unwilling target for any and all spells. Exception: you are always considered a willing target for cure/inflict/repair spells when used to restore hit points.

    Any character can choose a number of spells or spell groups equal to his Intelligence bonus (if any, minimum one). These groups can be as tight as a single spell ("dimension door"), or as loose as a single school ("abjurations", subschool ("teleportation spells"), descriptor type ("mind-influencing"), caster type ("clerics"), or spell level ("level one"). You cannot choose "all spells cast by Fred", since you have no way of knowing it was Fred who cast the spell while you are unconscious.

    You can change these chosen spell groups first thing in the morning after you wake up. Mostly, players will pick them once and leave them alone.

    For those spells or spell groups you have picked, you are considered a willing target while unconscious, regardless of who the caster was. In effect, while conscious you get to choose normally whether you are willing or not. When you are unconscious, you follow your pre-selected decisions.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-24 at 01:54 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #167
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!



    Unarmed Strike is a special case.
    See, anything attacking with a natural weapon (claw, teeth, tentacles, whatever) is attacking with a weapon. All creatures are proficient with their natural weapons.

    Humanoids making an unarmed attack provoke an AoO (mainly cause you have to get closer to a dude to punch him then you do to stab him), and if you really wanna be a stickler about it, take another -4 penalty to the attack roll. Technically, this is for using a weapon you aren't proficient in, but you could also think of it as "it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".

    Monks get improved unarmed strike at first level, listing unarmed strike as a weapon proficiency is confusing and redundant.


    I do understand the intent of the RACSD, but in this case, i actually think it's redundant and makes the rules even more confusing. Please, count my vote for Against rule 6.
    Last edited by Onikani; 2012-04-24 at 02:16 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Phaederkiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

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

    sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)

    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?

    Tippy, what would, if a) was contrary to your position be "no"
    your position on b) ?

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
    In light of the above RAW, I'd now like to state a houserule I'm considering...

    An unconscious character is by default considered an unwilling target for any and all spells. Exception: you are always considered a willing target for cure/inflict/repair spells when used to restore hit points.

    -snip-
    If you'd left it here, I'd be in full support of this houserule. I think that I understand what you are trying to accomplish with the rest of the houserule, but the additional book-keeping and the contra-intuitiveness (how does an unconscious Thog know when he's being targeted by an Abjuration?) of the rest make it less palatable for me.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Phaederkiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

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

    "it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".
    to be a stickler with real-life-examples again: it is much easier to hurt someone in a gothic full plate with a strike of a gauntlet that with a strike of a sword.

    you have a better lever and thus more kynetic power. It is quite easy to give someone a concussion even through a helmet.

    There is a reason for the predominance of wrestling techniques in historic fencing books for the fully armored fight.

    Punch him, throw him, lock his arm, open his visor, stabbytimes.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaederkiel View Post
    sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)
    Note that cures are not an issue, because they have the harmless entry.

    SRD: (harmless)
    The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 02:18 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaederkiel View Post
    sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)




    Tippy, what would, if a) was contrary to your position be "no"
    your position on b) ?
    Helpless creatures aren't hindered in making a save, unconscious creatures aren't either. If you are unconscious you forgo your save. Assuming that what you meant was that unconscious creatures don't forgo their saves, then I would make willing only spells fail and force saves on even helpful spells.

    You either save vs. everything (regardless of whether it's helpful or not), or save vs. nothing (regardless of whether it's harmful or not). Why in the world should you get a save against the BBEG's teleport but not have to save against your allies teleport?
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rule 34
    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 rules in the Magic Item Compendium clearly define the body slot item, and give a list of enchantments appropriate for such a slot.
    According the the MIC page 218 the example for body slot consists of armor or robes (clothes make sense here too).
    Also, You may only have 1 active magic item in each body slot, so you cannot receive a bonus for both magic armor and robes.

    The Rules in MIC (page 218) also detail the slot for Torso, and defines it as shirt, tunic, vests, or vestments. Enchanting an "entire set of clothing" would effectively mean that the PC loses the Torso Slot, since the shirt part of the outfit counts as covers the torso.

    Some would argue that a PC could wear 2 shirts, but then you are getting into a situation where 2 items occupy the same slot...


    I agree that common sense should dictate that if you can enchant robes, you should be able to enchant any outfit, but this causes a conflict with other clear RAW.
    I do not wish to vote for this in it's current form. But will vote for it, if we can fix/clarify some of the wording above.
    Last edited by Onikani; 2012-04-24 at 02:14 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    unconscious creatures don't forgo their saves, then I would make willing only spells fail and force saves on even helpful spells.

    You either save vs. everything (regardless of whether it's helpful or not), or save vs. nothing (regardless of whether it's harmful or not). Why in the world should you get a save against the BBEG's teleport but not have to save against your allies teleport?
    Tippy. Now you of all people arguing with common sense? OMG, the paradigm shift... are people going to jump from buildings?

    I think the issue is not big:

    Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.

    Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.

    So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) you ;)

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaederkiel View Post
    to be a stickler with real-life-examples again: it is much easier to hurt someone in a gothic full plate with a strike of a gauntlet that with a strike of a sword.

    you have a better lever and thus more kynetic power. It is quite easy to give someone a concussion even through a helmet.

    There is a reason for the predominance of wrestling techniques in historic fencing books for the fully armored fight.

    Punch him, throw him, lock his arm, open his visor, stabbytimes.


    I'm not arguing historical accuracy, I'm arguing RAW, and where and how it needs to be clarified/clarified for common sense.


    Let's examine your sequence:
    Punch him = Attack action with Unarmed Strike
    Throw him = Attack Action with Trip or Bullrush
    Open his Visor = Outside of the RAW for 3.5 DND, but could probably be represented by a Grapple check, again, an attack action.
    Stabbytimes = Attack action (possibly with Called Shot optional rules).

    That is a minimum of 4 attack actions, which either means 4 rounds, or 1 round for a PC with a +16 BAB. This means a PC at the very minimum of level 16 (and some good rolls!).
    Someone could probably make a tactical feat to simulate this, but afaik, no such thing currently exists.

    The rules system allow for combat without trying to be 100% historically accurate. Historically, no one could fly, fight dragons, or cast magic missile either. Also, successful Stabbytimes, (as you put it) would ALWAYS result in a death, in D&D, it means a dice roll for damage.
    ;)

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington DC's Suburbs

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Tippy. Now you of all people arguing with common sense? OMG, the paradigm shift... are people going to jump from buildings?
    I use common sense and houserules all the time, I just don't use them in RAW arguments because they have no place.

    I think the issue is not big:

    Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.

    Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.

    So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) you ;)
    See, you are making an assumption that is not supported. Willing Only spells are not the only time the condition "willing" is checked. It's checked every single time you get hit with a spell in the entire game. If a spell is restricted to "willing only" targets then it fails before any question of saves arise because it's an invalid target (just like using a creatures only spell on an object). If a spell is not so restricted it still checks whether you are willing or not, and if you are willing then you don't get a save.

    You agree on the above, correct?

    My position, which the rules support, is that if you are suffering from the "unconscious" condition then you are automatically willing. In which case you can still be affected by spells with the willing only target descriptor and you automatically forgo your saving throws against any spell cast upon you.

    That does not mean that you loose SR or any other immunities, as those take a separate specific action to lower, or that you loose your saves against anything but magic.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

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

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

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Common sense? Fine, I love common sense.

    A scroll, let's say a scroll of ice assassin, gets saving throws. Actually, it gets Fort, Reflex and will saving throws. It is not automatically considered to forego its save.

    An object gets to roll a saving throw but an unconscious PC canot roll a saving throw?

    I find that unreasonable and unnecessary. It also causes a higher number of PC deaths.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

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

    I think I see a root of some of the dissent.

    Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

    A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
    Now, is the bolded willingly a game mechanic term, or descriptive language?

    If someone is a willing target in terms of a spell that specifies something for a willing target, do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw? Do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw if the spell does not have a specification for a willing or unwilling target?
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Taelas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    A willing target is someone who voluntarily foregoes his saving throw, and it is also someone who accepts a willing targets-only spell. It is the same thing.

    The only reason there is a category for willing targets regarding spells is because these spells cannot work on hostile creatures. You'll notice that any spells which does work on hostile creatures, but which has harmless effects generally, have a "(harmless)" clause after their saving throw. (Willing targets-only spells do not have saving throws. They don't need them!)

    So by your logic, if you're unconscious and don't forego your saving throw, you now have to roll saves against heal, since you can't make the decision to voluntarily give it up.

    It works the way Tippy describes, and it is not an abuse... this is how the rules are intended to work. Yes, being unconscious sucks.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Godskook's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    I concede that what I wrote was too convoluted and wordy, but what's the best "common sense" way to fill that gap?
    The best "common sense" way to fill the 'gap' is to apply the rules uniformly across all hand-based weapons. You can make a slam attack with a claw attack, so what makes a dagger attack different than a claw attack?

    And as an example of RAW, read the vampire template's entry in the monster manual. Explicitly calls out that the slam attack may be used as a secondary natural attack with a manufactured weapon(which includes 2-handed weapons)(And humorously, doesn't add it to any of the sample stat-blocks as a secondary attack during a full-attack, even when the primary-manufactured weapon was 1-handed).
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

Posting Permissions

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