# Thread: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

1. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

tuggyne, Rule 036 is added, and references rule 002. Personally, I still can't see why Rule 002 is at all controversial, but apparently that's just my take on it. Needless to say, since I'm for a stricter standard still (002), I'm also for 036.

As you all consider rule 036, please also reconsider, logically, rule 002 in the same light.

A Fireball is a L3 spell.
Invisible Spell is a +0 Metamagic reducer.
Maximize is a +3 Metamagic reducer.

Arcane Thesis (Fireball) lets you lower the "level cost" of each metamagic you apply to a fireball by 1.

Arcane Thesis Fireball is still L3

Arcane Thesis Maximized Fireball is L5

Arcane Thesis Invisible Fireball is...
L2 by some tortured readings of RAW
L3 by Rule 002 and by Rule 036.

Arcane Thesis Invisible Maximized Fireball is...
L4 by RAW (3 + -1 + 2)
L5 by Rule 002 (3 + min0 + 2)
L4 by Rule 036 (3 + -1 + 2 is >= 3)

If you agree with the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Fireball (L3) to make it Invisible should not reduce it below L3 (and thus agree with Rule 036)...

Then can you explain the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Maximized Fireball (L5) to make it Invisible should reduce it below L5 (and thus explain why you disagree with Rule 002)?

Godskook, I *will not* be requiring any sort of authorizing, nominating, or pre-qualifying procedure. It's enought to manage it as-is without keeping track of which rules are still in limbo and which actually have a number and a place.

As you've seen (and, ironically, as your take on rule 35 has just enforced), any rule that drops to only 20% agreement is removed from consideration due to overwhelming disagreement, relegated to a single-line footnote. That, to me, is sufficient.

Zeful, I don't expect this thread to always be extremely active, and some questions receive limited activity due to being particularly unusual or specialized areas of interest. I'd far rather people make informed, insightful statements and votes than to just vote one way or the other to "keep an issue alive". The suggestion is appreciated, but we'll keep it as-writ.

moritheil, I'd really like to hear more about your reasoning...you feel that the purpose of the Legacy Champion is to exceed the class's intended design spec and limits? You say it's "the entire point of Legacy".

The Legacy Champion exists to allow you to continue progressing within the class while getting Legacy-related abilities along the way. I sincerely doubt it was ever intended to extend classes beyond their written design, and proposed this rule for that very reason.

In point of fact, there's even evidence that WotC thinks "short" classes, in particular, should have limits as part of the inherent balance of those classes. Again, going back to the Epic Progression rules, you can't advance a prestige class with less than 10 levels with an Epic progression...only 10-level PrCs are allowed to be extended.

Look at the few examples we have of 3-level PrCs, and you'll find that they tend to offer considerable greater benefits than typical 5-level or 10-level PrCs. They're focused...and within that focus, they're generally quite powerful.

So no, I don't for a moment think that the "point" of the Legacy Champion was to let someone have 11 levels in a 3-level prestige class. I think it's blatantly absurd, and what's more...I think that the length of a prestige class is, inherently, part of its balance...if it were intended to be possible to get to that 5th, 7th, 9th level in the class, the class would have been written to be that long.

Carr0t...could you clarify on Rule 016? I can't really put you down as disagreeing with a "sort of" qualifier to your stance.

Thanks everyone for migrating the great debate over Rule 015 (which, by the way, has now crept into the "approve" category) to another thread. As I mentioned before, while I appreciate the traffic, I'd prefer to have room to debate everything that's brought up here and not have it overwhelmed (or worse, shut down if the discussion gets heated) by a single issue.

2. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
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.
It also mentions it on page 134 under Damage(under Strength Bonus). It says your off-hand weapon gets 1/2 strength bonus to damage. On the same page under Attack Bonus it makes no mention of a penalty for your off-hand. It does the same thing on the next page for Combat Basics. Again on page 113 under the light and one-handed melee weapon sections it mentions a weapon in the off-hand gains 1/2 strength to damage.

The only mention I can find of actually determining your off-hand that I can find is on page 160 under Two-Weapon Fighting (and especially for having a penalty to attack). It uses the phrasing "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..." To me that implies you always have an off-hand, however I can find no other reference to determining your off-hand.

Overall, unless there's some mention of how you GET an off-hand, I don't think the RAW supports having an off-hand at any time other than using the two-weapon fighting attack action.

3. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Look in the PHB p 311.
I also recommend the rules of the game article concerning two-handed fighting styles.

4. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I might come up with some stuff later, but for now:

Rule 001: Yes, reasons are clear
Rule 002: Yes, the intent of the feat is clearly not to use subzero, and the feat is strong enough to be top tier without it
Rule 003: Yes, a different class shouldn't be better at progressing features the actual class has.
Rule 004: Yes, Monks shouldn't actually be penalized for having monk levels (beyond opportunity cost)
Rule 005: Yes, lol.
Rule 006: Yes, clear RAI
Rule 007: Yes, PHB 1 wasn't written with this situation in mind
Rule 008: No, this is an additional benefit of Dragontouched, which is pretty awful as is and needs the help
Rule 010: Yes, charge rules need clarification with mounts and this is probably the right direction to go.
Rule 011: Yes, though I'm not sure if I like the mount's attack at the end there.
Rule 013: Yes, clear
Rule 014: Yes, RAW is already leaning this way and needs clarification
Rule 015: Yes, saves are important for the system to function
Rule 016: No, not sure how you can target a spell through a tower shield.
Rule 017: Yes, clear
Rule 018: Yes, clear
Rule 019: No, this isn't really the only good interpretation.
Rule 020: Yes, implications of RAW and 014.
Rule 021: Yes, clear
Rule 022: Yes, otherwise silly
Rule 023: Yes, clearly physical to the system
Rule 025: Yes, makes sense
Rule 026: Yes, I actually thought this was already a rule
Rule 027: Yes, ditto.
Rule 028: Yes, other interpretations are not sensical (though benefits from the feature you get can allow you to retroactively qualify for it even if you lose what did it originally)
Rule 029: No, whips don't make AoOs, this thing clearly doesn't want them to.
Rule 030: Yes, makes sense
Rule 031: Yes, makes sense
Rule 032: No, each attack roll is a seperate provoking entity
Rule 033: Yes, I am in favor, since they should all be named the same thing and its just sloppyness that allows doubling.
Rule 034: Yes, good things
Rule 036: As I'm in favor of 002 I'm in favor of this
Rule 037: No, this is worded far far too vaguely. Most of these cases are silly but we should deal with them in detail.

5. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Darrin
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.
By the wording of the suggested rule a creature could make a sword attack with a clawed hand and then drop the sword as a free action to render the clawed hand unoccupied. Without anything else in play this might just about be acceptable, as you get one round of attacks before having to pick up your weapon, taking a move action and provoking an AoO to do so. But with the Quickdraw feat or Returning weapons, it could get very cheesy very quickly.

Since the intent of the thread (I think) is to rewrite rules so that their mechanical reading matches their common-sense reading, you'd need something to stop body parts from becoming unoccupied mid-round.

6. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Andorax
If you agree with the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Fireball (L3) to make it Invisible should not reduce it below L3 (and thus agree with Rule 036)...

Then can you explain the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Maximized Fireball (L5) to make it Invisible should reduce it below L5 (and thus explain why you disagree with Rule 002)?
The way I see it, Arcane Thesis is primarily about studying a particular spell in order to make combining metamagic on top of it more efficient, by making use of hidden patterns in the energies or the like.

Originally Posted by DeAnno
Rule 002: Yes, the intent of the feat is clearly not to use subzero, and the feat is strong enough to be top tier without it
Oy. I'm arguing against the creator of the mailman on this one? I think I'll take some more time to think about this, heh.

Originally Posted by DeAnno
Rule 037: No, this is worded far far too vaguely. Most of these cases are silly but we should deal with them in detail.
Probably true; as a guideline, it's a good one, but when creating new RAW a higher standard is needed. The idea is to codify common sense so that even those without can benefit.

7. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

38: On the Delusions of an Illusionist

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.

This is based on the fact that a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real simply disbelieves it without rolling a save. Being the caster sounds like it would be a convincing proof, and situations where it isn't seem like they'd almost certainly be rare -- and unusual -- enough not to be worth making a rule for.

I bring this up because I've seen people dispute it and I've seen handbooks that suggest doing things that this makes impossible -- for example, Greater Shadow Evocation :: Contingency shouldn't work.

8. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by lesser_minion
38: On the Delusions of an Illusionist

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.

This is a rules clarification: a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real simply disbelieves it without rolling a save. Being the caster sounds like it would be a convincing proof, and situations where it isn't seem like they'd almost certainly be rare -- and unusual -- enough not to be worth making a rule for.

I bring this up because I've seen people dispute it and I've seen handbooks that suggest doing things that this makes impossible -- for example, Greater Shadow Evocation :: Contingency shouldn't work.
Absolutely. I have argued this several times. Not only is it common sense, it also stops all kinds of Evocation-cloning, and Evocation, a much undervalued school, deserves more love... A single spell should not make a whole school obsolete. Shadow Evocation is still strong, because it is so versatile.

38: Yes, yes and yes

9. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I'm for #38, definitely.

10. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Agree.
Rule 002: Agree.
Rule 003: Agree.
Rule 004: Agree.
Rule 005: Agree.
Rule 006: Agree.
Rule 007: Agree.
Rule 013: Agree.
Rule 014: Agree.
Rule 015: Agree.
Rule 017: Agree.
Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 020: Agree.
Rule 021: Agree.
Rule 022: Agree.
Rule 023: Agree.
Rule 025: Agree.
Rule 027: Agree.
Rule 028: Agree.
Rule 030: Agree.
Rule 031: Agree.
Rule 033: Disagree.
Rule 034: Agree.
Rule 035: Disagree.
Rule 036: Agree.
Rule 037: Disagree by virtue of being a general rule rather than a specific ban on an infinite loop.
Rule 038: Agree

11. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 038: Yes

And now for another hotly debated Mailman-related topic.

Rule 039: Dragonwrought Kobolds are not quite true dragons. They cannot use their age category to qualify for Epic Feats, and cannot apply a True-Dragons-Only option which requires them to reduce the size of racial HD they do not possess (such as Loredrake).

The Epic Feat thing is clearly unphysical with regards to the system and opens up a cornucopia of horribleness which I think everyone can agree is unacceptable. Loredrake is more debatable but I am against it due to it being unintended for it to be used to give any creature (especially a PC!) a Sorcerer level higher than its CR, and an additional unintended benefit to an already powerful feat.

12. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 38: Agree.

Rule 39: Agree.

13. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 15: Agree

14. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I'm a little late to the party but I brought my own suit.

My first lot of Votes:
Spoiler

Rule 001: For
Rule 002: For
Rule 003: For
Rule 004: For
Rule 005: For
Rule 006: Against (Bringing a fist to a swordfight is hard. Like harder than knife to gunfight hard.)
Rule 007: For
Rule 010: For
Rule 011: For
Rule 013: For
Rule 014: For
Placholder for 15
Rule 016: For
Rule 017: For
Rule 018: For
Rule 019: Against (Not very celar.)
Rule 020: For
Rule 021: For
Rule 022: For
Rule 023: For
Rule 025: For
Rule 026: For
Rule 027: For
Rule 028: Against. (Got to make a comitment if you want that prestige class)
Rule 030: For
Rule 031: For
Rule 032: For, (it is meant hard to play off so many attacks anyway.)
Rule 034: For
Rule 036: For
Rule 037: For
Rule 038: For

There is a number of things I haven't voted for yet, as I am not currently able to access the relevent matrial or I wish to reveiw the arguements.

15. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I'm going Yes on Rule 038, but still cogitating it. Something vaguely bugs me about it, but I can't solidify the objection, and I'm guessing at this point that a sensible DM can handle the bizarre objections, and the common sense rule itself makes sense.

Rule 039...yes, ever so much yes. Just because they're hard-wired with delusions of grandeur that allow them to refer to themselves by age categories does NOT make them into true dragons.

EchoKnight, late commers are always welcome...I'll freshen up the banquet table. However, I've mentioned in the past that I can't really record a vote for "kinda". Feel free to discuss #15 and #16 (15 even has its own separate thread), but also give it a clear Yea or Nay vote.

Quick question. How does everyone feel about having a threshold for an undisputed (not a single no vote cast) rule being removed from the voting and made permanently approved? Right now, the rules are:

20% or less approving: Removed by common consensus
From 20% to 79.99% approving: disapproved, but still open for discussion
80% or more approving: approved, but still open for discussion

It wouldn't make a huge mechanical difference, and I'm thinking that if a particularly large number (say, 40) of posters ALL agree, it would cut down on the thread overhead, space taken up for votes, and my workload (hey, I can be honest) to just mark that one as "agreed, by overwhelming consensus" and leave it at that.

Thoughts?

I will try to update the rules who's status has changed, since the number of rules has grown considerably, each time I do an update.

Rule 007 is now approved.
Rules 038 and 039 have been added.

16. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

37 Agree

38 Agree

39 Agree, but with slight rephrasing...

Only creatures that have age steps matching those in the SRD/MM entry for "dragon" can qualify for feats that have "true dragon" as a prerequisite. This is in addition to the broader requirement of having the "dragon" type.

This rephrasing is in case there may be other creatures or templating shenanigans that could allow a creature to get the dragon type.

17. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by lesser_minion
38: On the Delusions of an Illusionist

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.

This is a rules clarification: a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real simply disbelieves it without rolling a save. Being the caster sounds like it would be a convincing proof, and situations where it isn't seem like they'd almost certainly be rare -- and unusual -- enough not to be worth making a rule for.
Very much agreed with this one.

Originally Posted by EchoKnight
Rule 006: Against (Bringing a fist to a swordfight is hard. Like harder than knife to gunfight hard.)
Isn't the "non-lethal damage only"/"low damage" adequate discouragement for most purposes?

A more precise rule might exclude Commoners and such from this, but other than that....

Originally Posted by EchoKnight
Rule 015: Against, kinda. (You can't really resist except subconsciously. I'd allow a will save to be made at half bonus, but not full. You're just not all there)
I'd put the last part in as a houserule, but that might be just me.

Originally Posted by EchoKnight
Rule 016: For, kinda. (I'd limit the direction a bit more, but basicly, yeah.)
3.5 rules without the facing variant are sufficiently counter-intuitive it's a little tricky to be sure

Originally Posted by EchoKnight
Rule 028: Against. (Got to make a comitment if you want that prestige class)
Ehh, I'd figured if someone wants a prestige class on such shaky grounds, they can have it.

And a proto-suggestion inspired by another thread:

Shapechange and I think some other spells allow you to change between forms with breath weapons; in their current form, this could allow you to stack up metabreath feats on each use and ignore the recharge timers by switching to a new form. I don't think that's logical; one way to fix this is to state that you only have a single recharge timer that does not change when you change forms, and exists even if you have no breath weapon presently. (Or some variation on that.)

Originally Posted by Andorax
Quick question. How does everyone feel about having a threshold for an undisputed (not a single no vote cast) rule being removed from the voting and made permanently approved? Right now, the rules are:

20% or less approving: Removed by common consensus
From 20% to 79.99% approving: disapproved, but still open for discussion
80% or more approving: approved, but still open for discussion

It wouldn't make a huge mechanical difference, and I'm thinking that if a particularly large number (say, 40) of posters ALL agree, it would cut down on the thread overhead, space taken up for votes, and my workload (hey, I can be honest) to just mark that one as "agreed, by overwhelming consensus" and leave it at that.
I think that would make a lot of sense. Whether the threshold should be as high as 40, though, I'm not sure; I don't think much lower than 20, however, would work properly at all, so that's a lower bound.

Finally, regarding Rule 039 and its variant, I'm not totally sure how it should be phrased to make things sensible, so abstaining for now.

18. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by EchoKnight
However on the matter of Rule 006, I'm afraid my stance is firm. I'd be for in a world without Monks, but while they are in play...

I don't understand your position, here. As far as I am aware, every class (other than Monk, technically) is proficient with Unarmed Strikes (including the Commoner, if he chooses to), by virtue of the fact that they are proficient with Simple Weapons (the Commoner can choose 1 Simple Weapon). How does this negatively affect the Monk?

19. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

tuggyne, I hope I've phrased rule 040 to your satisfaction (and yes, I approve of it).

Any other thoughts on an threshold for "unanimous consent, drop voting"?

Rule 040 is added.

20. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Hmm, looks like we need another one added:

Rule 041: I Can't See A Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness
Any darkness effect in an area of existing shadowy illumination or darker intensifies the darkness, rendering creatures effectively blind; creatures with blindsight or similar may use them as usual, but darkvision, low-light vision, and so on are ineffective.

I was reminded of this unfortunate rules glitch by a random post on another thread.

Oh, yeah, and 040 does in fact look good to me.

21. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I vote yes to rule 41. It is similar to the drowning scenario.

22. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

No to Rule 41. The spell's name isn't completely indicative of what happens, but "Creating an area of shadowy illumination" seems to be doing it's job if it's illuminating the area for people who can see in shadows.

23. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Menteith
No to Rule 41. The spell's name isn't completely indicative of what happens, but "Creating an area of shadowy illumination" seems to be doing it's job if it's illuminating the area for people who can see in shadows.
"Shadowy illumination" refers to an area where you can only see dimly. See pages 164-165 in the Player's Handbook for more details on illumination. It is not in and of itself a source of light, though the wording of the spell is very awkward.

It simply means that within its area of effect, all light sources are lowered to the level of shadowy illumination. The spell does not take into account what happens when you cast it in a dark area.

The spell has the [Darkness] descriptor. Spells that create light have the [Light] descriptor, and the two types of spell generally cancel out one another. A [Darkness] spell should not create a source of light (however dim it may be). That is self-contradictory.

24. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 034: Armored Outfits
Disapproved. While restricting it to a set of clothing isn't necessarily a problem (restricts magical armored handkerchiefs, but disallows sensible magical shirts) the idea that a set of magical pajamas could hold +8 AC, heavy fortification, and no Dex bonus looks kind of silly next to something like enhanced leather armor.

Furthermore, there is the problem that you can't price something like that sensibly. A +1 light fortification armor is priced as a +2 armor: +1 for the enhancement and +1 from the light fortification. How is a +8 heavy fortification priced? The cost of a +8 Bracers of Armor is completely independent from the pricing of armor enhancements.

Rule 037: Minus Infinity
Approved for my sanity.

Rule 038: On the Delusions of an Illusionist
Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur
Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain
All Approved, and I can explain why if people ask.

Rule 041: I Can't See A Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness
Approved. Spells such as Darkness are clearly intented to reduce normal visibility to shadowy darkness, not produce shadowy illumination from nothing.

25. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
"Shadowy illumination" refers to an area where you can only see dimly. See pages 164-165 in the Player's Handbook for more details on illumination. It is not in and of itself a source of light, though the wording of the spell is very awkward.
I'm looking at the SRD right now, because I'm at work, but it should be sufficient. Shadowy illumination is exactly that - a dim source of illumination. For example, a Torch casts Shadowy Illumination out to 40ft - shadowy illumination is clearly a result of light, in this case, and I don't see why it wouldn't be in Darkness's case.

Darkness has 3 effects;

1) This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius
In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm)

2) All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance).

3) Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
It simply means that within its area of effect, all light sources are lowered to the level of shadowy illumination. The spell does not take into account what happens when you cast it in a dark area.
Alternately, the spell does what is written on the page, which isn't ambiguous. If there was an issue with the RAW of it, then that'd be something else, but it's pretty clear on what it does and does not do.

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
The spell has the [Darkness] descriptor. Spells that create light have the [Light] descriptor, and the two types of spell generally cancel out one another. A [Darkness] spell should not create a source of light (however dim it may be). That is self-contradictory.
I'd be open to changing the descriptor of the spell, but I'm opposed to changing what the spell actually does.

26. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Menteith
I'm looking at the SRD right now, because I'm at work, but it should be sufficient. Shadowy illumination is exactly that - a dim source of illumination. For example, a Torch casts Shadowy Illumination out to 40ft - shadowy illumination is clearly a result of light, in this case, and I don't see why it wouldn't be in Darkness's case.
It is not possible to have shadowy illumination without having some form of illumination in the first place.

Originally Posted by Menteith
Darkness has 3 effects;

1) This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius
In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.
Yes, which means it creates an area where the illumination is limited to shadowy illumination. There is no other interpretation that does not confer upon the spell an additional ability (creating light) that a) isn't anywhere in the spell's description, and b) is utterly contradictory to the name of the spell, the description of the spell, and the intent of the spell.

Originally Posted by Menteith
Alternately, the spell does what is written on the page, which isn't ambiguous. If there was an issue with the RAW of it, then that'd be something else, but it's pretty clear on what it does and does not do.
No, it isn't "clear". It literally contradicts itself if it was meant to do what you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by Menteith
I'd be open to changing the descriptor of the spell, but I'm opposed to changing what the spell actually does.
Well, that's exactly what you are doing when you cause it to create a source of light, which is what would be required to brighten an area which is more dark than "shadowy illumination".

The spell's intent is perfectly clear. The wording isn't.

27. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
It is not possible to have shadowy illumination without having some form of illumination in the first place

Yes, which means it creates an area where the illumination is limited to shadowy illumination. There is no other interpretation that does not confer upon the spell an additional ability (creating light) that a) isn't anywhere in the spell's description, and b) is utterly contradictory to the name of the spell, the description of the spell, and the intent of the spell.
Or it causes the item to radiate Shadowy Illumination. The way it says it does in the actual text. Just because something's name is non-indicative of it's function doesn't change the text of the ability - this isn't something unique to the Darkness spell. If you want to play the RAI game when the text is clear, unambiguous, doesn't hurt the game, and still works fine in a "normal" (bright illumination) area, then by all means do so, but I'm not going to get into it.

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
No, it isn't "clear". It literally contradicts itself if it was meant to do what you are suggesting.
By all means, enlighten (just for pun) me about where the text is contradictory.

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
Well, that's exactly what you are doing when you cause it to create a source of light, which is what would be required to brighten an area which is more dark than "shadowy illumination".

The spell's intent is perfectly clear. The wording isn't.
If you're down with reading the minds of authors years ago, then you should absolutely do so in your campaigns. I'm going to stick with the actual text of the spell. Again, these are RACSD - I don't think that Darkness violates common-sense, and if you do, you should support the rule. I see that the spell clearly lays out what it does, and I don't have a problem with a spell that creates shadowy illumination regardless of the initial illumination.

28. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rules:
• 1 - Yes. This is, in my mind the only sane interpretation.
• 2 - Yes. I think this consistent with the spirit of metamagic and prevents some of the more disgusting metamagic exploits.
• 3 - Yes. The warlock could use the boost, but as you pointed out, the real problem is that Legacy Champion seems to be intended to keep you from losing out on class features to pursue a legacy weapon thing, not to enhance progressions of short PrCs.
• 4 - Yes. This feat was almost certainly not intended to make monks any WORSE for taking it. And even if it was, this is a much more reasonable interpretation.
• 5 - Yes. Overwhelmingly what 'dead' was supposed to represent.
• 6 - Yes. This is almost certainly oversight on the part of developers.
• 7 - Yes. This is an obvious fix to what was a carelessly written feat.
• 8 - Yes. An unneccessary hoop to jump through.
• 9 - N/A
• 10 - Yes. This distinction should be made, but I would favor a re-write of some tactical feats (combat brute and/or shock trooper) that would let you use some of their options when your mount charges, not just when YOU charge. Domino Rush in particular seems like it should be usable when mounted, I don't care about heedless charge.
• 11 - Yes. This cleans up mount/rider actions in combat in a consistent way.
• 12 - N/A
• 13 - Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This is an obvious developer oversight.
• 14 - Yes. We don't need rules to deal with favored hands.
• 15 - Yes. The title of this rule encapsulates my feelings precisely.
• 16 - No as currently written. I would be OK with something like this, but it needs to restrict spellcasting behind the shield, and restrict movement also. No running while getting full cover etc etc.
• 17 - Yes.
• 18 - Yes. I think this is currently RAW, but if it is a general interpretation, I support this being considered the common sense.
• 19 - No. I don't like the interpretations of slams having to be with arms if you have them. I think it's valid to interpret them as kicks, body slams, etc.
• 20 - Yes. If you're using just a shield, you should be able to use it as a primary weapon. There is no reason for it to always be an off-hand weapon.
• 21 - Yes. This closes a very silly, and very obvious loophole.
• 22 - Yes. This was obvious developer oversight. There is no reason to force them to wear armor to get their class based AC bonus.
• 23 - Yes.
• 24 - N/A
• 25 - Yes. I did not even know that this was an issue. There is no reason for lava to be treated differently.
• 26 - Yes. Unless otherwise specified, feats should be Ex.
• 27 - Yes. This was pretty clearly an editing error.
• 28 - Yes. This is the most sensible interpretation.
• 29 - No. It is clear that they didn't want you to be able to do this with whips.
• 30 - Yes, makes very good sense.
• 31 - Yes. This answers a number of VERY stupid issues.
• 32 - No. I think every instance should provoke separately.
• 33 - No as written. There are some clear examples (Monk + Ninja) that are not intended to stack. There are also clear examples of things that should be fine. (Paladin + Hexblade vs. spells). I like the idea in principle, but I think the correct fix here is a total re-write of X stat to Y bonus type abilities...
• 34 - Yes. This should be totally fine.
• 35 - N/A
• 36 - Yes. I like rule 002 MUCH better as it closes what I feel are a number of very silly exploits, but this would also be fine with me.
• 37 - Yes in principle, no on the fix. I think infinite loops should be forced to terminate at a fixed iteration number.
• 38 - Yes. This was probably so obvious no one even thought of the alternative interpretation.
• 39 - Yes. This is a sensible interpretation
• 40 - Yes. Cooldowns should be hard, if not impossible, to bypass.

{{Scrubbed}}

30. ## Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol
{{Scrubbed}}
The same way that Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell. I'd agree with changing the descriptor of the spell - I've already said that. Please don't insult me, call me intellectually dishonest, or insinuate that my reasoning is automatically inferior to yours. I've presented my argument - the spell's effect is laid out, is functional, and does exactly what it says - and I've asked for you to elaborate on what precisely is flawed with my argument. If you're getting this angry about it, then I apologize, as my intent was not to frustrate you. We disagree with the way the spell functions, and with the intent of the authors - that's all.

#### Posting Permissions

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