Dysfunctional Rules Thread V: Dysfunctions All the Way Down

[Sith_Happens]

Whips deal no damage to anything with at least +3 natural armor, actually.

A sap, on the other hand, will work.

[TuggyNE]

The point is that you're killing a monster as big as a small castle that has scales strong as steel and can breathe fire by HITTING IT WITH A WHIP.

You're saying that 5% of the time, you can hit a vital spot of the dragon. How? Even if you can get trough its scales, the whip is way to short to reach anything but its dermis. I can't see how scratching its dermis would kill a dragon.

Even more extreme, a PIXIE could kill a great wyrm with a whip. The scales of the dragon are probably thicker than the whip's length. It just makes no sense.

It's the same thing with a dagger, and really the same thing with any saving throw.

Although it occurs to me that if you don't do any damage through the DR it probably doesn't count, so there's that. (Never mind the blindsense that should by all rights guarantee no such sneaky commoner manages to get near enough, nor yet the casting that can readily afford an alarm a night to likewise prevent trouble.)

And I guess Sith is correct about natural armor, although I'd forgotten about that.

[Drachasor]

It's the same thing with a dagger, and really the same thing with any saving throw.

I agree here. This is more of a problem with any weapon.

Heck, it goes beyond CDG. There are some things where a greatsword is still going to have very little penetration. A spear on a Colossal Creature? That's going to be similar to stabbing someone with a 1" needle. Greatswords aren't going to be any better there either.

I think this falls under the general idea that abstract damage has some major oddities. But it isn't a rules dysfunction per se.

Though, perhaps CDG with non-lethal damage is a rules dysfunction. And a Whip is an especially odd version of that.

[Inevitability]

The thing is, even if you deal 0 damage, a DC 10 fort save is still required. (which may be a dysfunctional rule on itself). So even if our whip barely scratches the dragon's scales, he still risks dying. Pretty stupid, since your whip has about as much effect as if you were attacking the dragon while it isn't helpless. Only if its helpless, the dragon has to make a fortitude save to avoid dropping dead for no reason.

[Drachasor]

The thing is, even if you deal 0 damage, a DC 10 fort save is still required. (which may be a dysfunctional rule on itself). So even if our whip barely scratches the dragon's scales, he still risks dying. Pretty stupid, since your whip has about as much effect as if you were attacking the dragon while it isn't helpless. Only if its helpless, the dragon has to make a fortitude save to avoid dropping dead for no reason.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

The above applies. But this gets into the vague definition of an "attack" since CDG is not explicitly called an attack.

[Chronos]

The permanency one isn't a dysfunction; it's just the way the spell works. If you dispel the spell itself, it's gone. If you dispel the permanency, then the spell reverts to its normal duration, which is probably already expired, and so it's probably gone. RAW, you get two opportunities to dispel it, which appears to be just how it was intended.

[Drachasor]

The permanency one isn't a dysfunction; it's just the way the spell works. If you dispel the spell itself, it's gone. If you dispel the permanency, then the spell reverts to its normal duration, which is probably already expired, and so it's probably gone. RAW, you get two opportunities to dispel it, which appears to be just how it was intended.

In what sense does that appear to be how it was intended?

Taking personal spells as an example, this would seem to NOT be how it was intended.

[Fax Celestis]

The point is that you're killing a monster as big as a small castle that has scales strong as steel and can breathe fire by HITTING IT WITH A WHIP.

You're saying that 5% of the time, you can hit a vital spot of the dragon. How? Even if you can get trough its scales, the whip is way to short to reach anything but its dermis. I can't see how scratching its dermis would kill a dragon.

Even more extreme, a PIXIE could kill a great wyrm with a whip. The scales of the dragon are probably thicker than the whip's length. It just makes no sense.

Asphyxiation, maybe?

[CyberThread]

Lucid Dreaming + Grappling . I have to be nerdy and strong to send you off to la la land.

[Sith_Happens]

Lucid Dreaming + Grappling . I have to be nerdy and strong to send you off to la la land.

Speaking of Lucid Dreaming, the accompanying rules for the Plane of Dreams completely fail to specify what happens if you want your dream-self to Plane Shift out of it.

[Lightlawbliss]

...It just makes no sense.

Welcome to DND, a game full of stupid mistakes and technicalities that make no sense.

[Necroticplague]

Speaking of Lucid Dreaming, the accompanying rules for the Plane of Dreams completely fail to specify what happens if you want your dream-self to Plane Shift out of it.

...did you just re-invent astral projection?

[No brains]

Welcome to DND, a game full of stupid mistakes and technicalities that make no sense.

Welcome to D&D! The game where everything's messed up and the rules don't matter! :bigdrewcarey:

[The Viscount]

The Nereid from Stormwrack has 2 semi-dysfunctions with it.

Firstly, the Nereid has a touch that has the effect of DC 16 fort or begin drowning, which as we all know is entirely unavoidable and culminates in death, making this CR 4 monster unnaturally dangerous.

Secondly, it makes mention of a magical shawl of seafoam that, if destroyed, results in the Nereid's death in an hour. The Nereid has nothing to fear from this eventuality, since the shawl has no stats and thus cannot even be damaged, and separation from the shawl has no ill effects.

[deuxhero]

The PF spell Instant Armor replaces currently worn garments, which is pretty damn weird on its own to be honest (be glad it's explicitly opaque unlike normal force effects), but means that unless you make full plate, you are barefoot.

[Svata]

Where everything's messed up and the rules don't matter!

This should be the next thread title. Know its early to be deciding that, but still.

[ace rooster]

The ghaele's protective aura. It functions as a lesser globe of invulnerabilty, which it cannot turn off. This supresses it's own spell like abilities. it cannot use aid, color spray, cure light wounds, disguse self, comprehend languages, or see invisability. It can read your mind, but not if you are standing next to it.

[deuxhero]

(PF) The alchemist's "bombs" feature explicitly gives a weight (1 ounce, 1/16th of a pound) for a "prepared" bombed and says an alchemy kit (5 pounds) is assumed to have everything needed to prepare bombs.

While it's impossible for a single Alchemist to get the 81 bombs needed to exceed the kit's weight (I got 56 as the highest number in a day. Mythic could prob swing it a bit higher, as could using PFS's rule that you get extra bombs in place of brew potion, but I don't think it will add 24 no matter what you do), nothing says multiple alchemists can't use the same kit. If 3 decent level alchemists all drew from the same kit, they could get more catalyst than the kit weighs.

Another one that's hardly new (but I don't think has been mentioned here).

The PF trait Unnatural Presence lets you intimidate on animals... which you can do anyways, and vermin... which you could also do already, but most are mindless and immune to fear effects as a result.

[Jack_Simth]

3.5:

The Summon Instrument spell is a Conjouration (Summoning) spell with a duration of 1 min./level. The Summoning Subschool says "When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this" (emphasis added). Summon Instrument does not specifically say the instrument goes anywhere. Which means by RAW, it sticks around after the duration is over. You only need to cast it once, apparently. Of what use is the duration?

[Necroticplague]

(PF) The alchemist's "bombs" feature explicitly gives a weight (1 ounce, 1/16th of a pound) for a "prepared" bombed and says an alchemy kit (5 pounds) is assumed to have everything needed to prepare bombs.

While it's impossible for a single Alchemist to get the 81 bombs needed to exceed the kit's weight (I got 56 as the highest number in a day. Mythic could prob swing it a bit higher, as could using PFS's rule that you get extra bombs in place of brew potion, but I don't think it will add 24 no matter what you do), nothing says multiple alchemists can't use the same kit. If 3 decent level alchemists all drew from the same kit, they could get more catalyst than the kit weighs.

Not really that odd for several reasons. The materials in the kit are obviously inert in whatever form their in (supported by the fact bombs go back to being inert if you don't fling them soon). Plus, given how the bombs are explosive, it's highly likely a reaction that involves preparing them would involve absorbing compounds from the air, increasing its mass (likely nitrogen and oxygen).

[Flickerdart]

3.5:

The Summon Instrument spell is a Conjouration (Summoning) spell with a duration of 1 min./level. The Summoning Subschool says "When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this" (emphasis added). Summon Instrument does not specifically say the instrument goes anywhere. Which means by RAW, it sticks around after the duration is over. You only need to cast it once, apparently. Of what use is the duration?

It seems like the general rule is the dysfunction, rather than the spell - if the summoned object is supposed to stay forever, just make the duration Instantaneous or Permanent.

[Jack_Simth]

It seems like the general rule is the dysfunction, rather than the spell - if the summoned object is supposed to stay forever, just make the duration Instantaneous or Permanent.

Changing the general rule would break Instant Summons, causing that to need revision.

I'm not going to lay claim to exactly where the dysfunction lies. But the net effect is that something needs to be updated for things to make sense.

[Drachasor]

Changing the general rule would break Instant Summons, causing that to need revision.

I'm not going to lay claim to exactly where the dysfunction lies. But the net effect is that something needs to be updated for things to make sense.

Instant Summon should be a teleportation spell.

[Jack_Simth]

Instant Summon should be a teleportation spell.

Which would be a revision. Yes, that is indeed one way to deal with it. However, now you're making two changes (and who knows how many others to other effects out there) - wouldn't it be simpler just to add "and the instrument vanishes at the end of the spell's duration" rather than deleting a line from the summoning subschool and changing the subschool on another spell?

Regardless, though, if it obviously needs changing, it is dysfunctional, no?

[Drachasor]

Which would be a revision. Yes, that is indeed one way to deal with it. However, now you're making two changes (and who knows how many others to other effects out there) - wouldn't it be simpler just to add "and the instrument vanishes at the end of the spell's duration" rather than deleting a line from the summoning subschool and changing the subschool on another spell?

Regardless, though, if it obviously needs changing, it is dysfunctional, no?

Yeah, it's definitely dysfunctional. Rather than have special rules for all sorts of spells though, I think the sensible revision would be one that makes clear distinctions between them. Right now the difference between calling, teleportation, and summoning is quite muddled (particularly with regards to objects).

[ZamielVanWeber]

A tarrasque with over one million non lethal cannot be.killed, even by wish or miracle. It specifies it must be at 868 nonlethal for them to work. Good luck keeping careful track.of the ones digit of your damage.

[TuggyNE]

A tarrasque with over one million non lethal cannot be.killed, even by wish or miracle. It specifies it must be at 868 nonlethal for them to work. Good luck keeping careful track.of the ones digit of your damage.

That's the same sort of reading that would say you lose Power Attack if you accidentally get up to 14 Str.

Next.

[Drachasor]

That's the same sort of reading that would say you lose Power Attack if you accidentally get up to 14 Str.

Next.

Eh, how so?

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

[Svata]

Eh, how so?

Because The requirement for Power Attack is 13 STR, not 13 or more/ 13+ STR. If your damage would have to be exact, so would your STR score, if you haveany sortof internal consistency at all.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That is not a good.example for.internal consistency. One is a prerequisite, the other a random chunk of rules text from a monster block that creates a unique condition when it can die.