Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #211
    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)

    You are making the assumption that you can be both willing and unwilling at the same time.

    "Target" has nothing to do with the spell, it is a check made based on what you are attempting to affect with the spell. If you are "willing" then you are a valid target for spells that are "willing only".

    If you are willing, then per Voluntarily Failing a Saving Throw; you get no save.

    A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.
    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 - #212
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Ashtagon, I've added Dodging While Asleep as rule 035, but I'm also listed as against it.

    Even objects receive reflex saving throws...so sleeping individuals shouldn't be denied what even objects receive. I'm not sure if I want to propose it as RASCD, but I personally DM sleeping individuals as "Dex 0" with regards to reflex saves (-5 to the check).


    Onikani, I read over your comments on Rule 34, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking to have clarified. The net rules effect is identical either way (whether it's a shirt or a 'full outfit'), because either way the "Body" spot is being occupied, and taking up the space that armor, robes, or another shirt/outfit would occupy.

    I'm not sure what "clear RAW" this is in conflict with. A body slot clothing item can hold +Armor enhancements. Clothing in the PHB is defined in terms of outfits.

    If you're looking at the Torso issue...then that issue already exists and isn't a problem. You can legally wear a vest (of Escape for example) and a suit of armor...one occupying the Torso, the other the Body.


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

    Regarding rule #030. I opted for the Strict Aptitude approach because of examples such as Lightning Maces. The problem with applying Aptitude to feats like this is that there are a number of cases (this being one of them) where the nature of the weapon matters as much as the nature of the wielder.

    TOB 148: "A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus...or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality."

    By RAW (and fixed by Rule #030), you can Flay (PHBII) someone with a club, or (with a particularly tortured reading) strike someone with an Aptitude Greatsword and have the blow carry through for a 60' line (Penetrating Shot, PHBII).

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



    As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

    If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Bugbear 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
    You are making the assumption that you can be both willing and unwilling at the same time.

    "Target" has nothing to do with the spell, it is a check made based on what you are attempting to affect with the spell. If you are "willing" then you are a valid target for spells that are "willing only".

    If you are willing, then per Voluntarily Failing a Saving Throw; you get no save.

    A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.
    Where are you getting that from? Not saying you are wrong, but everything I see about lowering a save or saving versus a harmless spell says you may "willingly choose to", rather than just "willing".

    One implies a conscious action, the other a state of being.

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Possibilities:

    A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all "willing-only" spells- and unwilling for the purpose of all other spells.

    Alternatively:

    A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all spells cast by allies, and unwilling for the purposes of all spells cast by non-allies.

    Any other suggestions for making it reasonable?

    One of the most traditional D&D tropes is finding a sleeping chromatic dragon and trying to do as much damage as you can before it wakes up (dragons spend a lot of time asleep)

    If sleeping = unconscious, and unconscious = willing for the purposes of all spells cast, you'd think most dragons would have been found by spell casters and slain in their sleep long ago.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    "Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    "Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.
    Can we please respect the OP's wish?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax
    As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

    If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.
    And discuss this somewhere else?

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.
    Why not? Why must the two states be linked?

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Can we please respect the OP's wish?

    And discuss this somewhere else?
    New Thread
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    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 For.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels For, this is RAW.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike Abstain.
    Rule 005: Dead is DeadFor.
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally For
    Rule 007: Lions with Hooves For.
    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage Abstain.
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? For.
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? For.
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox For.
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed For.
    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped For, this is RAW.
    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.
    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 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 For.
    Rule 030: Strict Aptitude For.
    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 For.
    Rule 034: Armored Outfits For.
    Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Against.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK

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

    Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Yes. Bucket healing is very silly.
    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Yes.
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: Maybe. If you're playing a little-supported class and have nothing better to do with your levels than rack up more numbers, then I don't see a problem with advancing your pseudo-CL at the cost of gaining nothing but BAB, saves, and skill points. But otherwise, yes. Perhaps a note that advancing beyond the table for your chosen class is purely at the DM's discretion.
    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Yes. It seems pretty clear that your Monk levels (or any other comparable ones) should only benefit you.
    Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Yes.
    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Yes.
    Rule 007: Lions with Hooves: Yes. If only D&D had [STANCE], [GRASP], and [FLIER] tokens...
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.
    Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox: Yes.
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.
    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Yes.
    Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?
    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.
    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.
    Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!: Yes.
    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Yes.
    Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Yes. Given how positive energy affects undead on the Material Plane, it seems a bit of an oversight that a whole plane full of the stuff is actually quite nice for them.
    Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted: Yes.
    Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats: Maybe. May need more text about whether or not having an extraordinary ability allows you to use it even if the results of said ability would be suppressed in an AMF field.
    Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous: Yes.
    Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified: No.
    Rule 029: Whiplash: Yes. Sure, why not?
    Rule 030: Strict Aptitude: Yes. The property shouldn't exist anyway; characters should be able to swap focus for a feat without waiting for a level-up.
    Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield: Yes.
    Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: Unarmed yes, ranged no.
    Rule 033: No Double Dipping: Yes. Even being able to get the whole of your stat bonus to AC twice without investing a whole bunch of levels is a problem, but this will have to do as a quick fix.
    Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?
    Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.
    Last edited by Sutremaine; 2012-04-25 at 09:02 PM. Reason: Wow, what a lot of white space.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    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)

    So, time for some updated opinions here

    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: I'm not sure I've actually come right out and said it, but I disagree with this as stated, and consider it excessive.

    I will, however, propose an alternative, and smaller, correction:
    Rule 036
    No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original, or in the case of a heightened spell, below its heightened level.

    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: If I'm reading this correctly, I believe this is the right way to look at it, and therefore agree for reasons stated in the other thread and similar.

    Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: OK, at first I thought this would work, but now I have to admit it's going a bit far for mere "common sense"; it's a great houserule, I'd put it in, but it's probably more correct for the basic rules to force AoO provocation on each such attack. So I'm reluctantly changing my vote to disagree.

    Rule 034: Armored Outfits: I think this is suitable in its new form, so I agree.

    Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: I do not consider this a suitable change, either as a houserule, as common sense, or anything else; disagree.



    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.
    While I agree that the charging rules as they currently stand are unacceptably bizarre, I'm not convinced that this is an adequate replacement. (I should probably take some time to work up an alternate suggestion.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.
    Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

    Either way, clarification seems desired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?
    It is, or should be, but an editing error in the 3.5 update caused some potential confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?
    MIC I believe makes rules for this sort of thing work, but not everyone is aware of their ramifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.
    That's probably a reasonable way to look at it; also, IMO, reflex saves are sufficiently odd already that trying to straighten them out by saying "you don't get reflex saves when asleep" is probably counter-productive and harmful to balance. Reworking the system might work, but is probably far out of scope for the thread.
    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

  12. - Top - End - #222
    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 tuggyne View Post
    Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

    Either way, clarification seems desired.
    As the person who wrote it, this is what I ment. It doesn't matter HOW many weapons you are wielding, and you could wield quite a few (1 in each hand + armor spikes + weighted cloak + 2x boot blades + 2x elbow blades + 2x knee blades + mouthpick weapon = 11 without REALLY trying). It doesn't matter HOW MANY of them you attack with in a round, either, or what order or what combination. None of them are offhands UNLESS you are making a TWFing full attack. You have to state you are using TWFing before you make your first attack (because the penalties apply to ALL attacks with manufactured weapons, not just offhands). You can't change your mind and decide to TWF half way through the round. Since you know before you make your first attack that you will be TWFing, you know that one of your weapons will be designated as "offhand", and that weapon can only be used to make offhand attacks gained via the TWFing combat option.

    I'd even go so far as to say that Skip never anticipated a person wielding more than 2 weapons, or using weapons that aren't wielded by your hands even though armor spikes are a core example of doing just that. Since Skip doesn't even discuss those parts of the rules, I'd be a fool to believe he thought everything through when he wrote that article.

    The reason I proposed this rule was in light of a rather lengthy dissertation I wrote over on En-World WRT 3.0 vs 3.5 and the changes to TWFing and "offhands" and monks. Spoilered for length:

    Spoiler
    Show

    3.5 got rid of handedness. In 3.0, if you were right handed, and you did anything with your left hand, you got penalized -4 on it unless you had the Ambidextarity feat. Monks had an explicit work around for this, stating that a monk can strike unarmed with either limb, or any part of their body without suffering offhand penalties. Basically, monks were given a half version of Ambidextarity that only applies to striking unarmed.

    Fast forward a half an edition. 3.5 eliminated handedness. Everyone is able to attack with whatever hand they want, or indeed attack without hands at all. If you have, for example, a BAB of +6, and are currently wielding a longsword in your right, a shortsword in your left, and you have armor spikes, you can strike longsword/shortsword, shortsword/longsword, longsword/longsword, shortsword/shortsword, longsword/spikes, shortsword/spikes, or spikes/spikes. Order doesn't matter, as long as the highest bonus attack is first. All attacks are mainhand, since the character is only making their normal iterative attacks. Heck, he could even attack once with his longsword, drop it and the shortsword, Quickdraw a shortbow and fire that. No handedness means that all iterative attacks are mainhand, no matter which hand, if any, is used to make it. This is supported by RAW and the FAQ.

    So when does a person use TWFing? TWFing is a special combat maneuver. It requires a full attack, which generally means a full round action. TWFing grants an extra attack, with some very special stipulations. First, the extra attack can't be made with any weapon used in the primary array of attacks. In the above example, if the character attacks with longsword/shortsword as primary attacks, his armor spikes would be his offhand. If he attacked longsword/longsword as his primary attacks, he could use either the shortsword or the spikes as his offhand attack. Secondly, the mechanical modifiers. Depending on your feats and the size of your offhand, this could be as much as -10 or as little as -2. Also, any attack designated as offhand receives only half +Str to damage, regardless of how it is wielded. If i TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, my greatsword gets +1.5x Str if I use it as my primary (which means my spikes get +0.5 Str). If I make my spikes my primary, they would get normal +1x Str, while my greatsword would only get +0.5 Str, despite that it is 2handed. I'd also take major penalties since my offhand is not light.

    So, how does this interact with Monks? Well, FoB is very similar to TWFing, but also different. FoB does give an extra attack, but it doesn't make that extra attack an offhand. In that way, FoB is more like Rapid Shot than TWFing. Rapid Shot gives an extra attack per round, but does not make the attacks offhanded. So, when the rules state "there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk fighting unarmed" that conforms with the normal rules for everyone else. The monk using just FoBs doesn't have an offhand. NOBODY in that situation has an offhand, because nobody making their normal iterative attacks has an offhand, because handedness was removed in 3.5. The only people who DO have an offhand are the people who take a full attack action which includes the TWFing combat action.

    FoB, TWFing, and Rapid Shot can actually all be combined. If a Monk had the relevant feats and say, a BAB of +6, he could throw 2 shurikens with his iteratives, 1 with his FoB, 1 with his Rapid Shot, and up to 2 as offhand attacks. All penalties would be cumulative. All throws would get full +Str to damage except for the 2 made as offhand attacks, which would only get half.

    The only place where there is any ambiguity is is how to treat UASs. Is it one weapon that is comprised of every striking surface of your body, as is alluded to in the combat chapter? Can a character wield more than one UAS, so to speak, as indicated by the Kensai PrC? That is grey, and relatively unclear. If it is one weapon, then it can't be combined with itself at all in TWFing, since your offhand has to be different from all of the weapons you make your primaries with. If you can wield multiple, so to speak, then you most definitely can TWF with your UAS, and you could indeed attack with FoB and TWFing in the same full attack with just your UAS. You simply separate the attacks out. Mainhand and flurry attacks deal full +Str damage. TWFing UAS attacks only get 1/2 +Str.

    I hope this helps clear things up. I've done a lot of research and thinking about this topic, and I'm pretty sure I got everything right.
    Last edited by Keld Denar; 2012-04-25 at 10:24 PM.
    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.

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.
    I thought the phrasing was clear enough? If you could be making TWF extra attacks in a round but aren't doing so, then the TWF penalties aren't in force because you're not doing anything that interacts with the TWF rules. If you get TWF penalties for holding two weapons even if you aren't attacking with both of them in that round, then you'd need a second clarification to define 'weapon' in such a way that gauntlets, shields, and improvised weapons are excluded from that definition.

    It was more a note on the slight vagueness of the word 'using'. If a rule comes into effect when you use Power Attack, then that's pretty simple to figure out because a Power Attack has to be declared. You could argue that Power Attack, once taken, defaults to being used every round at -0/+0 and therefore the hypothetical rule is always in effect, but you probably wouldn't get very far.

    With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Keld Denar, while I don't have any problem with eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule), claiming handedness doesn't exist in 3.5 is just plain wrong. Off hand is defined as just that.

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule)
    Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    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 Sutremaine View Post
    Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.
    The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.
    Last edited by Szar_Lakol; 2012-04-25 at 10:48 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    Keld Denar, while I don't have any problem with eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule), claiming handedness doesn't exist in 3.5 is just plain wrong. Off hand is defined as just that.
    There is no actual definition of 'off-hand' in the 3.5 SRD, except in relation to two-weapon fighting. When deciding what your character looks like and his other statistics, you are not told to choose or roll for handedness (considering you do get random height, weight, and age charts, this seems like something they would have put in that chapter if it was to have a real game effect.) The only place where it actually tells you that you might have a pre-defined 'primary' and 'off' hand is in the Glossary.. which is conspicuously not in the SRD. So.. why does anything in the Player's Handbook not get in the SRD?

    Either it's Product Identity, excluded from the Open Game License, and therefore not freely distributed in the SRD.. or it's not considered to be rules-relevant text. And the glossary isn't Product Identity.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    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
    Ashtagon, I've added Dodging While Asleep as rule 035, but I'm also listed as against it.

    Even objects receive reflex saving throws...so sleeping individuals shouldn't be denied what even objects receive. I'm not sure if I want to propose it as RASCD, but I personally DM sleeping individuals as "Dex 0" with regards to reflex saves (-5 to the check).
    1.Against the new rule 35.

    2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

    3.Dex 0, is again, penalizing sleeping(which you can still hear while doing) more than objects.(A lvl 1 sleeping wizard would have -5 ref while a wand would have a +2).

    4.As for the inevitable 'well just deny the dex bonus', I'm going to pre-emptively vote no to that one too.
    Avatar by Assassin89
    I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
    My homebrew(updated 6/17):

  19. - Top - End - #229
    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 Sutremaine View Post
    With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.
    An apt summary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.
    While I kind of doubt 035 will receive any further support from anyone, I would like to note that the only real disadvantages of assigning official numbers to rules that will probably eventually be removed are (1) cluttering the original post; (2) creating additional work for the maintainer. (The additional discussion induced by the suggestion would have to happen anyway.) As such, it's really mostly up to the maintainer to determine.

    On the other hand, the primary advantage is basically that it makes it easier to discuss consistently.

    That's how I see it anyway.
    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

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Godskook View Post
    2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.
    The best we can get is that something must be seconded before it can be voted on, and it has 24 hours from the vote starting (either the OP announcing that voting has started, or the seconding itself) to accumulate 10 votes or get pulled for non-interest.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Opinions:

    15: Unconscious creatures should still get saves vs spells: Yes: unconscious creatures still get saves.

    35: Asleep creatures should auto fail all Ref saves: No- the rules for "helpless" (and asleep includes "helpless") say you are "treated as Dex 0"- which does not include this- unlike Dex -, which creatures like shrieker mushrooms have.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  22. - Top - End - #232
    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)

    34 Agree

    35 I'd like to withdraw this proposal. It seemed like common sense at the time and an interesting quirk, but even when I wrote it I wasn't sure it was strong enough to be worth 'correcting'. Having seen the way everyone else sees it now and their justifications, I'd like to withdraw my vote.
    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

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Orc in the Playground
     
    moritheil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

    The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

    Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.
    Disagree strongly. That's the entire point of Legacy - the reason to take the class, and the reason for the class to exist.

    Agree on 005 though. I've heard some pretty wacky debates. Did you know that depending on what spell you use to return someone to life, strictly RAW, the "dead" condition has not been removed? It requires an interpretation of "you return someone to life" as meaning that the "dead" condition no longer applies.

    27 yes, 29 no, 28 is already covered in C. War as it implies a cascade failure if you fail to meet class requirements of a class you belong to. (Things dependent on that thing fail.)

    I would like to propose a "common sense" rule of "Infinite loops are right out: Anything that would cause an infinite or recursive gain is automatically disallowed."

    I believe that double dipping abilities IS acceptable if they are different (for example the hexblade boost to saves is not the same as the blackguard's; one applies Cha to all saves and the other only to spells and spell-like abilities.) They are different abilities from different sources; why shouldn't they stack? Similarly the Mysticism domain grants a temporary boost to saves equal to Cha, but the Paladin Divine Grace is a permanent improvement to saves based on Cha. These are clearly different things.

    13 was clarified somewhere for one apotheosis class. It just wasn't written out to apply to all apotheosis classes.
    Last edited by moritheil; 2012-04-26 at 02:43 AM.
    The Refounding OOC IC
    Here be Dragons

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "Cold is better for cooking food than heat!"=wrong. As simple as that.
    Quote Originally Posted by moritheil View Post
    But we even have real world examples of cold cooking, so is it so unreasonable to say that in a fantasy world that could be the norm and that cold COULD be better than heat for cooking?

    You can produce several million pounds of Tarrasque steak every day! (Better hope he's edible.)

  24. - Top - End - #234
    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 Szar_Lakol View Post
    The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.
    If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

    No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.
    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.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    There is always an off-hand. It's clearly described in the rules.
    A shield-bash for example is an off-hand attack. The rules furthermore indicate the off-hand to be a label more than a designation (of an actual hand) through the definition of armor spikes:
    You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
    To further illustrate this we can use Skip Williams' example: A fighter with a longsword in one hand and a lit torch in the other. Furthermore, the fighter uses spiked armor.

    The fighter now designates any of the weapons, and the torch, as his primary weapon, which by consequence makes the others off-hand.

    Taking your example of a character armed with armor spikes and a mouthpick. The character designates which is the primary weapon, which then makes the other the off-hand weapon. It would have been clearer to name them primary and secondary weapon (s), but they didn't.
    Regarding monks, their FoB attacks could be considered primary, and any additional (non-special monk) weapon attacks are then "off-hand" for determining penalties when full-attacking (or the other way around).
    Regarding STR damage bonuses when wielding an off-hand weapon two-handed (yes, it gets confusing): I think there is enough rules support to give that attack +STR damage (instead of 1/2 STR) due to the fact that adding a hand to a weapon swing adds another 1/2 STR damage bonus (see for example savage species). Note that this can't be done with light weapons, only 1- and 2-handed weapons.
    Last edited by Gwendol; 2012-04-26 at 08:16 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Carr0t's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 001: Agree.
    Rule 002: Agree.
    Rule 004: Agree.
    Rule 005: Agree.
    Rule 006: Agree.
    Rule 007: Agree.
    Rule 014: Agree.
    Rule 015: Agree.
    Rule 016: Disagree, sort of.
    Rule 017: Agree.
    Rule 018: Agree.
    Rule 019: Disagree.
    Rule 020: Agree.
    Rule 021: Agree.
    Rule 022: Agree.
    Rule 023: Agree.
    Rule 025: Agree.
    Rule 026: Agree.
    Rule 027: Agree.
    Rule 028: Agree.
    Rule 029: Agree.
    Rule 030: Agree.
    Rule 031: Agree.
    Rule 032: Disagree.
    Rule 033: Agree.
    Rule 034: Agree.
    Rule 035: Disagree.
    Anybody else want to negotiate?
    Korben Dallas

    Gabriel Strazza - Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

  27. - Top - End - #237
    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 Zeful View Post
    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For.
    Ok, you voted for something that says when a natural weapon is occupied, it is not available to attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.
    Please explain when a Warforged loses his slam attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.
    Do mean a creature holding a sword in a claw could attack with the sword, drop the sword, then attack with that claw? I don't think that passes the smell test.

    Or do you mean drop first (no sword attack), then claw? That's RAW, no problem there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.
    You too. If a giant loses his slam attacks by wielding weapons, when does a Warforged lose his slam?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carr0t View Post
    Rule 018: Agree.
    Rule 019: Disagree.
    Could you elaborate?

    The majority appears to be against me, but I still have no idea what exactly you would prefer. It seems to me you're all arguing for the following:

    Large humanoids with two slam attacks lose them if they do something else with their arms. All other creatures with slam attacks keep them regardless of what they're doing with their arms.

    I'm perfectly happy with accepting that as a viable common-sense solution, but I'm not getting the sense that's what you all would prefer.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    Darrin, I'm still not quite understanding the issue here, but have withdrawn my previous vote.

    My understanding was that all creatures would lose their slam attack if their arms were occupied, no? In particular medium sized creatures with only one attack (I figure they need both arms to deliver the attack).

  29. - Top - End - #239
    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 Keld Denar View Post
    If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

    No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.
    An off-hand attack (as per TWFing) is not the same as an attack with the off hand. The off hand is the non-dominant hand. It's confusing terminology, and most likely, the glossary entry is a remnant from 3.0, but since it's there, we can't just ignore it while discussing RAW; chirality is still a thing. Off hand is defined in the rules (unless you want to claim the glossary isn't part of the rules).

    Attacking with armor spikes (or any other weapon that isn't wielded in the hand) has nothing to do with handedness.

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Last door on the right
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 001: Agree
    Rule 002: Agree
    Rule 003: Disagree
    Rule 004: Agree
    Rule 005: Agree
    Rule 006: Agree
    Rule 007: Agree
    Rule 008: No comment
    Rule 010: Agree
    Rule 011: Agree
    Rule 013: Agree
    Rule 014: Agree
    Rule 015: Agree
    Rule 016: Agree
    Rule 017: Agree
    Rule 018: Agree
    Rule 019: Agree
    Rule 020: Agree
    Rule 021: Agree
    Rule 022: Agree
    Rule 023: Agree
    Rule 025: Agree
    Rule 026: Agree
    Rule 027: Agree
    Rule 028: Disagree- u should not be able to get feats that have pre-reqs if u only have a temp
    Rule 029: No comment
    Rule 030: Agree
    Rule 031: Agree
    Rule 032: No comment
    Rule 033: Agree (But I still do it :P)
    Rule 034: No comment

    For number 35
    Spoiler
    Show

    I would say that sleeping character can’t make a reflex save, because how can they react to something if they can’t even move.

    But I see the problem with this since objects and creatures that don’t move still get a saving throw.

    Why not give helpless/ sleeping creatures a luck throw instead. Where they don’t get there base or dex to the save, but are still allowed to roll a d20. The idea being that maybe they were just in the right place at the right time. Maybe the explosion didn’t mushroom out in that general direction, or maybe a rock/ tree took most of the blast for them. Even in real life things like this happen, a grenade falls into a hole with 3 guys standing in it. 2 notice and dive for cover, 1 gets out fine, the other loses his legs, but then the 3rd guy who wasn’t paying attention only gets a few scrapes just because he was lucky enough that the shrapnel didn’t fly in his direction.

    This means that low DC checks (like say a artillery round) has a chance of “just missing”, while a high DC check (a guided missile) will always hit unless one can move out of the way.
    Plz no grammar Nazis
    Spoiler
    Show
    . I am Dyslexic and dysgraphic. That means I know how a word is spelled, but I can’t put it down as such bc my mental state won’t let me. So if you want to say something about my spelling, plz contribute to the post first. Then feel free to say what ever you want.

Posting Permissions

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