Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[Telok]

The screwed up rules in CW do address that:CArc is silent on the matter.

Ah, I missed that one. Still looks like the DMG is setting the rules for 'to take the level of this class you must' while the screwball rules are more of a 'when you lose X, lose the character'.

[Debatra]

If you think that the rules from CArc or CW actually work and apply to all PrCs, how do you explain to your players that their characters with PrCs are screwed as soon as it is not their turn? The rules say that you loose stuff (it varies between the two books) if at any time you do not fulfil the prerequisites.
When it is not a caster's turn, he cannot cast spells (unless he has immediate action spells), so whatever the book specifies is gone. When the assassin is not constantly killing someone to join the assassins (which he can't because he already joined), he loses stuff. etc.

And did you notice that neither CArc nor CW has rules how to regain whatever they remove? So even if at some point you again fulfil all the prerequisites, whatever you lost is gone forever.

Oh come on. That's nonsense on the same level as "affected" and you know it. How can you apply that kind of "logic" without also using it on the PrCs that are actually in CA/CW? Acolyte of the Skin, for example (the very first PrC in CArc) would be ineligible the moment they were no longer undergoing the Ritual of Bonding.

[Andezzar]

You are absolutely right in the assessment that Acolyte of the Skin loses its special abilities as soon as the character is no longer undergoing the Ritual of Bonding.

The write up of this class however highlights the writer's ineptitude. One prerequisite is correctly worded, so that you do not lose it as soon as the character is no longer perfomring it and the other is not:

Special: Must have made peaceful contact with a summoned evil outsider.
Special: Must undergo the Ritual of Bonding (see above).

They would just have had to write "Must have undergone" and the prerequisites would have been a lot less dysfunctional.

The more common prerequisites of having certain feats and skill ranks don't cause trouble with the screwball rule, because you usually cannot lose them anyways, and you even have them when it is not your turn. The screwball rule would at least kind of work, if all prerequisites would only require possession of something and not the ability to do something.

[torrasque666]

They would just have had to write "Must have undergone" and the prerequisites would have been a lot less dysfunctional

"Undergo" is a verb, without a tense to be applied to (undergoes, undergone) it simply means to "experience or be subjected to (something, typically something unpleasant, painful, or arduous)." (emphasis mine) Its still kinda grammatically correct to say "Must undergo" as that is saying that the verb needs to be performed.

English is weird.

[Andezzar]

"Must undergo" is present tense. So the prerequisite is no longer fulfilled as soon as the ritual is in the past. "Must have undergone" is present perfect. So it still applies to the presence even if the contact with the outsider has been in the past.

[Troacctid]

"Must undergo" is present tense. So the prerequisite is no longer fulfilled as soon as the ritual is in the past.

No, that would call for the present progressive tense, which indicates ongoing actions.

This is more an issue of stylistic inconsistency, which is, at worst, a minor editing error without any rules implications. RAW-wise, it is cause for less concern than a typo.

[Andezzar]

No, that would call for the present progressive tense, which indicates ongoing actions.

While present progressive would emphasize ongoing actions, any present tense is wrong for past actions, especially with the requirement to continually fulfil the prerequisites.

[georgie_leech]

While present progressive would emphasize ongoing actions, any present tense is wrong for past actions, especially with the requirement to continually fulfil the prerequisites.

'You must run to the store for errands to get my help.' Do you think the only way this hypothetical person is getting aid is if they are currently running to the store, or will they be helped if they do the task being asked?

[The Random NPC]

'You must run to the store for errands to get my help.' Do you think the only way this hypothetical person is getting aid is if they are currently running to the store, or will they be helped if they do the task being asked?

I'd say that while it is a prerequisite, it sounds like it is being communicated directly to a person about a task to be completed in the future.

[Andezzar]

'You must run to the store for errands to get my help.' Do you think the only way this hypothetical person is getting aid is if they are currently running to the store, or will they be helped if they do the task being asked?

If the person is required to continually fulfil the prerequisites, yes, which is exactly what the screwed up rules require.

In your example the run to the store has to come before the help. The person won't get help before he has run to the store, but he will get it afterwards. Fulfilling prerequisites in this way is explicitly forbidden by the screwed up rules.

[georgie_leech]

Let me try again. One of the the prerequisites for Assassin is 'The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.' Does this also require a constant state of 'killing,' and if not, what's the difference?

[Andezzar]

Yes, because:

Should a character find herself in a position (because of changed alignment, lost levels, or the like) where she no longer meets the requirements of a prestige class, she loses all special abilities (but not Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or base save bonus) gained from levels of the
prestige class.

And

It’s possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.
If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided.

For the assassin not autodisqualifying himself by not constantly murdering people to join the assassins, the prerequisite would have to say:"The character must have killed someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." Simple present and present perfect do not have the same meaning.

On top of that there is a logic problem with the prerequisite. As soon has the character has joined the assassins, he can no longer kill anyone with the sole purpose of joining the assassins.

But we are in luck those rules cannot not apply to PrCs in the DMG anyways.

[Sliver]

Thus after the cast of Orb of Force we will get completely non-magical Orb of Force, which exact properties (besides 3" size) are completely unknown

As for Orbs of Force, we do know some of their properties. First of all, of course, we know that they're made of force

Technically, the usual orb dysfunction means that the orb of force is not, in fact, made of force, but acid. After dealing the damage, it's an inert pile of acid.

Enlarge Person will encumber halflings who were previously just under their light load; their light load goes from 24.75lb to 43 lb (if they were strength 10) and their gear goes from 24lb to 48lb. This probably also works for tiny creatures (16.5 to 32.25, 16.25 to 32.5) but I don't know because while the weight multipliers are specified for large and small weapons, none are mentioned for any other size categories.

Why is that a dysfunction? Enlarge Person isn't harmless...

[ShurikVch]

Technically, the usual orb dysfunction means that the orb of force is not, in fact, made of force, but acid. After dealing the damage, it's an inert pile of acid.

Nope!
Actually, neither Complete Arcane, nor Spell Compendium version of Orb of Force refer to Orb of Acid spell; Orb of Force do untyped damage, because spell's text don't specify 1d6/CL of which type it does

[Troacctid]

While present progressive would emphasize ongoing actions, any present tense is wrong for past actions, especially with the requirement to continually fulfil the prerequisites.

That's not true. The present tense can totally be used for actions that aren't occurring in the present, such as with the historical present or the present subjunctive. I'm sorry, but this is a serious transgression and I'm afraid I'm going to have to revoke your Grammar Nazi card.

[Andezzar]

Neither of those are used in this case (one is more a stylistic tool than a grammatical one and the other only applies to subordinate clauses), and what I meant was that if both sentences (the prerequisite and the rule for fulfilling the prerequisites) are in the same tense, they happen at the same time, or at least overlap. So yes the assassin must constantly kill someone for the sole purpose of joining the assassins lest he lose his class features, if those screwed up rules applied to that class.

[georgie_leech]

Neither of those are used in this case (one is more a stylistic tool than a grammatical one and the other only applies to subordinate clauses), and what I meant was that if both sentences (the prerequisite and the rule for fulfilling the prerequisites) are in the same tense, they happen at the same time, or at least overlap. So yes the assassin must constantly kill someone for the sole purpose of joining the assassins lest he lose his class features, if those screwed up rules applied to that class.

No, Assassin isn't safe even if the screwed up rules don't apply, because you need to fulfill the prerequisites to take the first level in the first place. Under your interpretation, a prospective Assassin must be in the process of killing someone as they level up, which is impossible given how XP works.

Or, you're wrong and the Present Subjunctive is being used for an imperative, which is both grammatically correct (imperatives can use the subjunctive phrasing) and not dysfunctional.

[Andezzar]

No, Assassin isn't safe even if the screwed up rules don't apply, because you need to fulfill the prerequisites to take the first level in the first place. Under your interpretation, a prospective Assassin must be in the process of killing someone as they level up, which is impossible given how XP works.

No. The rules in the DMG explicitly say that all prerequisites must be fulfilled before taking the first level in the PrC, they do not specify how long before. They most certainly do not say that you must fulfil them at the same time as taking the first level. For your convenience

Unlike the basic classes found in the Player’s Handbook, characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement (see page 58 of the Player’s Handbook) apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class.

Or, you're wrong and the Present Subjunctive is being used for an imperative, which is both grammatically correct (imperatives can use the subjunctive phrasing) and not dysfunctional.

the imperative has even more direction to the future.

[Troacctid]

Neither of those are used in this case (one is more a stylistic tool than a grammatical one and the other only applies to subordinate clauses), and what I meant was that if both sentences (the prerequisite and the rule for fulfilling the prerequisites) are in the same tense, they happen at the same time, or at least overlap.

Those were just examples. This particular usage is actually in the infinitive form, not the present tense, since it's preceded by an auxiliary. "Must" always uses an infinitive.

[Andezzar]

Yes kill is an infinitive but the modal verb must is still present tense.

[Troacctid]

Well of course "must" is in the present tense. Defective modal auxiliaries like "must" can't take any other tense. Not only would it be grammatically incorrect to put it in the past tense, it would also be impossible, since no past tense form of the verb exists.

[Andezzar]

And in that case you must use the equivalent construction with "to have to" or something similar to express obligation in the past or future.

[The Viscount]

Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse, but I can't find any requirement of a specific order-of-operations for leveling up, either. It's not on page 58-59, nor do I see a restriction in the Skills or Feats chapters. I know that's how it was done for the Neverwinter Nights video games, but ... I can't find it in the PHB. The only clear indication of order is that a class choice has to come before several other steps, since class sets the parameters for them. Also the rules for prestige classes say "the first step of advancement is always choosing a class", strongly implying a specific intended order without actually delineating anything past step 1.

I just don't see any written rule demanding skill selection before feat selection.

I certainly understand that, and I don't mean to be argumentative, but in my copy of the PHB, on page 58-59, there is a numbered list, beginning with "choose a class." Skills are #6 on this list, and Feats are #7, so you would choose skills before feats on levelup. Is there some other way to interpret this?

[Jormengand]

Interesting one from here, cleave and great cleave trigger whenever you deal zero or more damage to a creature, because that's enough to make it drop if you trip it.

[Judge_Worm]

My two cents.
Must undergo- Future tense.
Must be undergoing- Present tense.
Must have undergone- Past tense.

Spoiler: Rant

Show

Must is unnecessary here, and you is understood.
Must is the primary verb here, and that's the real disfunction. "Shall/Will," "Has," and "Is" are all better choices.
Must lacks any alternate forms.
Ex.
I must. Thou must. He must. We must. You must. They must. I must do this. I must have done this. I must be doing this. I must be done with this. I must have been doing this. (Bonus) I must have been done doing that which I am having to be doing at a time in which I have to do this. (That last sentence is proper English, it can be shortened to "I have done this when it had to be done," but where's the fun in that?)
There is no musting, or musted. Must is a crappy verb, it has to be modified by another verb to make any sense. "I must this" is technically a full thought, but it is awkward and has very little usage except when "this" is an understood verb; even then that sentence is still extremely awkward.

Ebonics/African American Vernacular makes more sense in conjugation as a creole than English does as a proper language.

[Telok]

Something I recently realized, Forcecage has the text "All spells can pass through the bars" in it's barred version. Which means that the barred Forcecage is completely transparent to spells and cannot block or hinder line of effect.

This only applies to spells, not to invocations, psychic powers, utterances, or anything else. Apparently you can toss a barred Forcecage on someone and then cast something like Bigby's Clenched Fist to beat then to death.

[Graypairofsocks]

Something I recently realized, Forcecage has the text "All spells can pass through the bars" in it's barred version. Which means that the barred Forcecage is completely transparent to spells and cannot block or hinder line of effect.

This only applies to spells, not to invocations, psychic powers, utterances, or anything else. Apparently you can toss a barred Forcecage on someone and then cast something like Bigby's Clenched Fist to beat then to death.

Creatures in the barred version of Forcecage do have cover against ranged attacks.

[Andezzar]

If the creature does not fill the forcecage, you can just set the clenched fist inside the cage. Cover does not help against that, and once the fist is in there it can pummel the creature.

[Jormengand]

invocations, utterances

"Utterances (Sp):"
"A warlock's invocations are spell-like abilities"
"Spell like abilities... work just like spells".

psychic powers

"The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency."

[Telok]

Creatures in the barred version of Forcecage do have cover against ranged attacks.

Not all spells are ranged attacks. Plus you get into the territory of the spell saying that it gives cover against ranged attacks and allows all spells to pass through it. So does a ranged spell attack pas through or not? The spell says both.

Ok, looks like psi gets a pass too. How does that affect Astral Construct?

You don't have to cast a Bigby's hand spell inside the cage, the cage allows the spell through.

I'm not completely convinced about the invocations. They 'work like spells' while the Forcecage allows spells through. I can understand the reasoning but that also allows +0 metamagics to work on spell-likes. Forcecage does not say 'spells and similar' or anything, it seems pretty exclusive to spells alone. What are the implications if all instances of the word 'spells' are replaced with 'spells and spell-likes', does anything else break?