Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

[Jormengand]

according to the definition of bonus

The fighter would like a word with you.

[Necroticplague]

The fighter would like a word with you.

A "Bonus feat" is an object entirely distinct from using the word "bonus" as a modifier.

[Jormengand]

A "Bonus feat" is an object entirely distinct from using the word "bonus" as a modifier.

Why, then, can a bonus attack not be?

[Andezzar]

Because Bonus Feat is defined whereas bonus attack is not. Adding a positive number to an attack (not the attack roll) as per the definition of bonus makes no sense.

[illyahr]

But you can't - contrary to far-too-popular belief - parse the "Whole Sequester brouhaha" in a way that makes sense, but you can - and automatically would, naturally - parse whirlwind attack so it makes sense.

The point is: the fact that you have to basically translate the wording into something that makes sense means you are trying to figure out RAI from RAW. If RAW and RAI don't already match up, we have evidence of a dysfunction. Sure, obvious ruling is obvious but the fact that you need to connect the dots is what puts it in this thread.

[Jormengand]

The point is: the fact that you have to basically translate the wording

No you don't - you literally just have to read it the way it's literally written on the page.

[illyahr]

But you can't - contrary to far-too-popular belief - parse the "Whole Sequester brouhaha" in a way that makes sense, but you can - and automatically would, naturally - parse whirlwind attack so it makes sense.

Parse:
grammar : to divide (a sentence) into grammatical parts and identify the parts and their relations to each other

: to study (something) by looking at its parts closely

If you have to study the sentance to find its meaning, it's not intuitive. If it isn't intuitive, someone will get it wrong.

[Jormengand]

If you have to study the sentance to find its meaning, it's not intuitive. If it isn't intuitive, someone will get it wrong.

Technically, you have to study any sentence to find its meaning. So what?

[illyahr]

Technically, you have to study any sentence to find its meaning. So what?

Unless it is broken down Barney-style, someone isn't going to understand what they intended. When they can't convey what they intended, dysfunctions occur.

Hell, we are two reasonably-intelligent individuals and even we don't understand each other without a lot of back-and-forth.

[Jormengand]

Unless it is broken down Barney-style, someone isn't going to understand what they intended. When they can't convey what they intended, dysfunctions occur.

Really? Because I understood it on the first reading. It's not that complicated, is it?

[illyahr]

Really? Because I understood it on the first reading. It's not that complicated, is it?

Did I say you didn't understand it? All I said that someone was going to misunderstand. In order to avoid as many as possible, the writers need to be perfectly clear. They are not.

Just because we understand what the writers intended to say most of the time doesn't mean the sentance structure isn't set up very poorly or that something in the phrasing was used incorrectly.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, I understood it too. Maybe you just have poor reading comprehension.

Awkward grammar ≠ dysfunction.

[illyahr]

Yeah, I understood it too. Maybe you just have poor reading comprehension.

Awkward grammar ≠ dysfunction.

First off: I resent that implication.

Second off: I know awkward grammar =/= dysfunction. That's not what I'm saying and hasn't been what I've been saying.

What I'm saying is this:

if [awkward grammar].possible meanings > 1
then possibility of dysfunction > 0

[No brains]

While reading on the animate dead dysfunction, I recalled reading once about some amorphous creature that had bones in it and had "a rudimentary skeletal system". I thought it was the bone ooze from MM2, but that wasn't the case. The reason I bring this up is that this ooze with bones can be turned into a skeleton by the spell and the template. It has "a skeletal... system" by the template and it merely "has bones" by the spell.

Actually the spell's wording could make it so that any corpse that by any loose definition "has bones" can be raised as a skeleton. It could have a foreign bone jammed into it, or it could even have a bone drawn on it.

[The Viscount]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.

[Flickerdart]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

[Jormengand]

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

Plus, if you can find a creature that isn't undead (or a construct) and is hurt by Positive Energy (pretty sure it's possible - any ideas?), if you have mortalbane and some way of getting CMW as a SLA, you can mortalbane CMW it in the face.

Which is probably the best you're going to get out of your mortalbane CMWs.

[The Random NPC]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

Besides which, you can't do less than 1 for damage. It's one of the few places you round up.

[Curmudgeon]

Besides which, you can't do less than 1 for damage. It's one of the few places you round up.

No, you still round down. There's just a minimum damage amount after you round down.

[Story]

Wouldn't Knowledge Devotion add damage to CMW? It is a touch attack after all.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't Knowledge Devotion add damage to CMW? It is a touch attack after all.

Certainly. The Knowledge check you're required to make will likely tell you the target is an Undead, and thus Cure Minor Wounds will be an attack spell rather than a Harmless willing target touch spell. If you hit with a weaponlike spell then you add your Knowledge Devotion bonus.

[The Viscount]

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

This particular instance doesn't work, Warmage Edge applies only to spells cast as a Warmage. I suppose a rainbow servant could theoretically pull this off, so point stands.

[Bucky]

(Pf) The Shadow Veil arcane exploit lasts for "a number of rounds equal to 1 + the arcanist's Charisma bonus."

Presumably they meant Charisma modifier, but that's not what it says. And it's unclear what happens when the arcanist has several bonuses to their Charisma.

[Curmudgeon]

(Pf) The Shadow Veil arcane exploit lasts for "a number of rounds equal to 1 + the arcanist's Charisma bonus."

Presumably they meant Charisma modifier, but that's not what it says. And it's unclear what happens when the arcanist has several bonuses to their Charisma.

Charisma bonus is a positive Charisma modifier, not any specific bonus to Charisma.

[Debatra]

The Darkstalker feat includes the line "You cannot hide in plain sight unless you have that ability as a class feature."

So I guess people with the Dark template and Collars of Umbral Metamorphosis are screwed.

[Andezzar]

That is unfortunate but not dysfunctional. Users without HiPS as a class feature can still use normal hiding against creatures with the special senses.

[SirKazum]

Can you gain HiPS from sources other than classes, though? I don't know those things Debatra is talking about, but I'd guess that's the problem. That Darkstalker only allows you to HiPS if it's a class that grants you that ability.

[Andezzar]

Debatra already mentioned two options. The Dark Creature Template and the Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, an item that temporarily grants the aforementioned template. Both can be found in Tome of Magic, and a better version of the Template can be found in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave.

[Chronos]

...and a better version of the Template can be found in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave.

Sigh. It's better in some ways, and worse in others. Yes, it's better in that it removes the need for concealment, but it's also worse in that it's (su) instead of (ex). And no, that's not the same distinction: There are (ex) versions of HiPS that also remove the need for concealment. In fact, the ToM Dark template is the only version of HiPS that has that problem.

[Andezzar]

There are (ex) versions of HiPS that also remove the need for concealment.

Which are those?

In fact, the ToM Dark template is the only version of HiPS that has that problem.

Not quite, Ranger HiPS for instance also does not obviate the need for concealment, although that usually is not a problem because another class feature provides concealment.