Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata

[Telok]

Spells Known is a completely functional mechanic.

Well yes, the mechanic is functional but the class suffers for it. Anyways it is a bit off topic.

How about this: Has WotC ever produced an accurate and legal PrC example character? If not, is WotC dysfunctional?

[PsyBomb]

Well yes, the mechanic is functional but the class suffers for it. Anyways it is a bit off topic.

How about this: Has WotC ever produced an accurate and legal PrC example character? If not, is WotC dysfunctional?

They have. Oddly enough, most of MoI's example characters were relatively well thought-out. Still an unacceptably high rate of mis-built characters... likely resulting from building during playtest and not accounting for changes later,

[Jeff the Green]

They have. Oddly enough, most of MoI's example characters were relatively well thought-out. Still an unacceptably high rate of mis-built characters... likely resulting from building during playtest and not accounting for changes later,

I'm more inclined to believe that there's a pervasive misunderstanding of how leveling up works. Specifically, you can't use a feat, spells, or skill points to qualify for a PrC in the same level you get them. I don't think it explains every messed up example character, but it explains a lot.

[Necroticplague]

I'm more inclined to believe that there's a pervasive misunderstanding of how leveling up works. Specifically, you can't use a feat, spells, or skill points to qualify for a PrC in the same level you get them. I don't think it explains every messed up example character, but it explains a lot.

Still doesn't explain how the heck the example Fleshwarper entered so fast. It would appear that was a case of "Graft Flesh has prereqs?"

[Venger]

They have. Oddly enough, most of MoI's example characters were relatively well thought-out. Still an unacceptably high rate of mis-built characters... likely resulting from building during playtest and not accounting for changes later,

to my amazement, it appears you're right. Sayyara na Retheil, the sample incandescent champion, doesn't display any overt errors given a cursory readthrough. she fulfills all the prereqs for the class, she has the right number of feats, her attacks and damage seem calculated correctly, and even her AC adds up. I think wotc actually built at least 1 legal prc sample character.

wow.

[Svata]

The Ice Paraelemental(p. 180-182, Manual of the Planes)'s Chill Metal ability "acts as the druid spell..., except within the given radius... As with the spell, it takes three rounds for affected metal to reach the freezing stage. Once it does it remains at that stage until the ice paraelemental takes a standard action to end the effect. The metal returns to its starting temperature two rounds later, just as with the spell."

What happens when it dies before ending the effect, as so many creatures do when they face adventurers? Sure, its fixed by adding "or it dies" after the italicized portion, but, if anything, that makes it worse.

[TypoNinja]

The Ice Paraelemental(p. 180-182, Manual of the Planes)'s Chill Metal ability "acts as the druid spell..., except within the given radius... As with the spell, it takes three rounds for affected metal to reach the freezing stage. Once it does it remains at that stage until the ice paraelemental takes a standard action to end the effect. The metal returns to its starting temperature two rounds later, just as with the spell."

What happens when it dies before ending the effect, as so many creatures do when they face adventurers? Sure, its fixed by adding "or it dies" after the italicized portion, but, if anything, that makes it worse.

The elementals power is chill metal, except in an emanation rather than the targeted spell. There is no dysfunction, you leave the emanation area and are no longer effected.

Also, being dead would silence the ability since it stops being that creature when killed. Literally.

creature

A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

The corpse of something doesn't have any of the traits of whatever that something used to be.

[ShurikVch]

Dorjes augmentation limit:

However, dorjes can be created at a higher manifester level than required to manifest the power. In this case, the dorje that holds an augmentable power is augmented, to the limit of the manifester level and the power’s augmentation maximums, if any. The manifester level of a dorje cannot be more than five higher than the minimum manifester level to use the power it contains. See Creating Dorjes

OK...

Creating Dorjes
...
For example, energy missile is a 2nd-level kineticist power with a minimum manifester level of 3rd. If you wanted to make a dorje of energy missile with a manifester level of 11th (eight higher than the minimum), you would pay for the creation of the dorje as if energy missile was a 6th-level power.

Am I missed something, or is the dorje of energy missile routinely exceed ML limit for dorjes?

[Jeff the Green]

Here's one: According to the ECS errata, "Magic items created by an artificer are considered neither arcane nor divine." That means that if a Wizard 1/Artificer 1/Wizard +18 (19) uses his Wizard spell known and Wizard Scribe Scroll bonus feat to create a scroll of time stop, his apprentice couldn't use it without UMD and couldn't write it into his spellbook.

[ShurikVch]

Warforged Juggernaut PrC, Expert Bull Rush CF:

A warforged juggernaut can also add its class level to Strength checks when trying to break down doors.

Doors, but not walls?
Please, compare it with the Dungeon Crasher ACF:

You also gain a +5 bonus on Strength checks to break a door, wall, or similar obstacle. ... and the bonus on Strength checks to break objects increases to +10.

Apparently, for WJ it's easier to break adamantine door than wooden wall...

[Necroticplague]

Warforged Juggernaut PrC, Expert Bull Rush CF: Doors, but not walls?
Please, compare it with the Dungeon Crasher ACF: Apparently, for WJ it's easier to break adamantine door than wooden wall...

Muscle of society, a PF trait, has the same problem. Not quite as extreme since its only +2, but same issue of being door specific.

[Gemini476]

It's probably because of really old (I'm talking OD&D here, I'm pretty sure) rules regarding knocking down dungeon doors, to be honest. (Dungeon walls tended to be several feet thick and made out of stone.)

That's not to say that it isn't a bit dysfunctional, because it is.

Although I think it's more a case of breaking the door open vs. smashing through a wall Kool-Aid Man style? More to do with the lock and hinges than... whatever walls have.

Still weird, but a bit understandably so.

[Fax Celestis]

Campfires never go out or run out of fuel.

A typical piece of lumber has hardness 5 and 10 HP, possibly more if it is an especially thick piece of lumber. Being on fire inflicts 1d6 fire damage per round.

Because of how hardness works, a piece of lumber on fire takes 1d6 damage per round, halved (round down), and then subtracts the hardness, with no minimum damage applied. ((1d6)/2)-5 is a range of -4.5 to -2. Since reduced damage from hardness has a floor of 0:

Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).

...a piece of lumber never takes damage from being on fire, though it will emit light. A torch would as well, except that it has a hard limit of usefulness of one hour for no explicable reason. So I guess since the torch isn't consumed, you just have to relight it once an hour.

Suddenly the Fire Forest of Innnentodar from the War of the Burning Sky doesn't really seem that implausible.

tl;dr: The fire department in D&D is actual fire, since it can't actually destroy anything of consequence, and continual flame is a spell for suckers.

[Chronos]

I think that one was noted in the very first thread.

[Fax Celestis]

I think that one was noted in the very first thread.

Was it? Cool. I wanted to make sure.

[Gemini476]

Yeah, fire not burning wood is a very old and somewhat well-known dysfunction.

There's some suggestions around the rules that certain appropriate sources of damage should bypass certain object's hardness, like IIRC mining picks getting through rock, but there's not really any concrete suggestions.

[Telok]

Yeah, fire not burning wood is a very old and somewhat well-known dysfunction.

There's some suggestions around the rules that certain appropriate sources of damage should bypass certain object's hardness, like IIRC mining picks getting through rock, but there's not really any concrete suggestions.

Just for fun note that if fire ignores hardness and isn't halved then someone with a torch can burn through three inches of wood a minute. That two foot thick wall of tree trunks around your littlt fort? A guy dual wielding torches can put a man sized hole through it in five minutes.

[Fax Celestis]

Yeah. I think the real dysfunction is that "being on fire" deals less damage than "being stabbed with a longsword" or "falling twenty feet".

[Svata]

Yeah. I think the real dysfunction is that "being on fire" deals less damage than "being stabbed with a longsword" or "falling thirty feet".

Ftfy. The first 10' doesn't count.

[Fax Celestis]

Ftfy. The first 10' doesn't count.

That's only for deliberate jumps.

Falling Damage
The basic rule is simple: 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Jump check or DC 15 Tumble check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumped, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Jump or Tumble check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

Falls onto yielding surfaces (soft ground, mud) also convert the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal damage. This reduction is cumulative with reduced damage due to deliberate jumps and the Jump skill.

Objects don't have Strength scores and as such can't make Jump checks.

[ThisIsZen]

A possible solution to the issue of fire not burning wood: to the best of my knowledge, being on fire is a state, not an attack. The damage halving specifically calls out attacks, but being on fire naturally is not an attack. Not to wood, and not even to PCs:

"Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)"

So, without any real adjudication needed on the part of the DM, fire should still deal full damage to wood. Most of the time this won't translate to any actual damage, but then it takes a decent amount of time for a campfire to need a new log anyway, so this groks pretty well.

[Fax Celestis]

A possible solution to the issue of fire not burning wood: to the best of my knowledge, being on fire is a state, not an attack. The damage halving specifically calls out attacks, but being on fire naturally is not an attack. Not to wood, and not even to PCs:



So, without any real adjudication needed on the part of the DM, fire should still deal full damage to wood. Most of the time this won't translate to any actual damage, but then it takes a decent amount of time for a campfire to need a new log anyway, so this groks pretty well.

Hardness doesn't care about attacks:

Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).

The sub-bit about "energy attacks" is probably what you're driving at, though.

[ThisIsZen]

That is what I was talking about, yeah. 5 times out of 6 the fire still won't deal any damage to the wood, but it's not actually prohibited from doing so by the math, because being on fire isn't an energy attack.

Which makes sense because a log of firewood sitting in a campfire doesn't burn up completely in ~18 seconds.

[Curmudgeon]

...a piece of lumber never takes damage from being on fire, though it will emit light. A torch would as well, except that it has a hard limit of usefulness of one hour for no explicable reason. So I guess since the torch isn't consumed, you just have to relight it once an hour.

A torch isn't a burning stick; it's a stick carrying a finite amount of a flammable substance. Once that material is gone, the remaining stick is just as resistant to fire as any other piece of wood in D&D. The torch is consumed; the stick isn't.

[Telok]

A torch isn't a burning stick; it's a stick carrying a finite amount of a flammable substance. Once that material is gone, the remaining stick is just as resistant to fire as any other piece of wood in D&D. The torch is consumed; the stick isn't.

Cool. Since a torch does fire damage and can set things on fire the stick will be on fire and provide as much light as a torch. Why do people buy torches then? Got it. Torch sticks are functionally equal to the haft of a wood hafted weapon which only has ten or fifteen hit points. If ongoing fire ignores the half damage but not the hardness then the stick lasts about six minutes.

Personally I prefer buying two pint lanterns to throw as splash weapons in an emergency, at really low levels only.

[Gemini476]

Torches in general are somewhat dysfunctional, I think. Less so in mechanics than in general "does this make sense" stuff.

Seriously, they don't make any smoke. They can't, or the entire party would be TPK'd within the hour whilst journeying through dark dungeons by torchlight.

In D&D - and this is universal over most editions, actually - they're basically just bigger and brighter candles.

I'm not entirely sure that this is appropriate for this thread, but it seems relevant enough.

[Curmudgeon]

Cool. Since a torch does fire damage and can set things on fire the stick will be on fire and provide as much light as a torch.

We've already covered this. The ongoing fire damage from the torch can't overcome the wooden stick's hardness, and therefore doesn't set the stick on fire.

[Fax Celestis]

We've already covered this. The ongoing fire damage from the torch can't overcome the wooden stick's hardness, and therefore doesn't set the stick on fire.

"On fire" is a condition that doesn't necessarily require you to have taken fire damage. A really-poorly rolled fireball (say, CL 5, rolls all 1s) against a wooden door: deals 5 fire damage, halved, then -5 hardness, makes 0 damage, but the fireball doesn't care if it deals damage to set things on fire.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

What it doesn't say is "Creatures and objects damaged by the fireball are set on fire." If it is a flammable object and it is within a fireball's AoE, it is lit on fire even if it takes no damage or is immune to fire.

[Jeff the Green]

What it doesn't say is "Creatures and objects damaged by the fireball are set on fire." If it is a flammable object and it is within a fireball's AoE, it is lit on fire even if it takes no damage or is immune to fire.

If you can't take damage from fire, are you really combustible, though?

[georgie_leech]

If you can't take damage from fire, are you really combustible, though?

Technically, it keeps the ignition bit even if the descriptor gets changed to [Cold] via that feat whose name I can't remember, so I'm not sure how relevant Immunity to Fire is.