Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[illyahr]

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.

Sure, the ranged spell passes through, you just might not hit what you were aiming at.

[Flickerdart]

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.

I would say "ranged attack which is a spell" is a more specific subset of "ranged attack" and so the specific rule of "it's a spell!" triumphs over the general "all ranged attacks get cover." But the other way could also be argued for.

[torrasque666]

It may be referring to things like Fireball, which need a ranged touch attack to accurately pass through such small openings.

[Telok]

It may be referring to things like Fireball, which need a ranged touch attack to accurately pass through such small openings.

It's obvious that the intent is that way. It's supposed to be a cage made of unbreakable force fields that acr physical in nature. But it explicitly says that all spells can go through it.

This includes (can't double check at the moment) flame blade, phantom steed, the wall spells, tensers flotaing disc. All spells, right?

[No brains]

So could a living spell just walk right out of a force cage?

[Flickerdart]

So could a living spell just walk right out of a force cage?

A living spell is a spell in name only. It's an ooze that casts a spell when it hits things, and not a spell itself.

[Graypairofsocks]

I think some oozes could fit through a half-inch gap.

[Debatra]

You can decide whether or not you're Full Attacking after you see the results of your first attack, but there are several Full Attack options (Flurry of Blows, TWF, Rapid Shot, etc) that would affect that first attack. I'm not seeing any specific vs general solution here either (like needing to call it a Full Attack ahead of time or something).

[Denver]

You can decide whether or not you're Full Attacking after you see the results of your first attack, but there are several Full Attack options (Flurry of Blows, TWF, Rapid Shot, etc) that would affect that first attack. I'm not seeing any specific vs general solution here either (like needing to call it a Full Attack ahead of time or something).

I see that rule as specifically spelling how to handle the remainder of a Full Attack, as it reads: "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks [...]"

That is: In order for that rule to have bearing on a round, it has to come into play in a round for which a character would have multiple attacks. In order for a character to have those multiple attacks, they have to take a full round action.
If, as a low-level monk, you make an attack at your normal attack bonus - then you have not made an attack using Flurry of Blows, which means you have made an Attack Action, which is a standard action, and means that the monk has no remaining attacks that round. Since there are no remaining attacks, there is nothing to satisfy the "instead" part of the clause.
If my character makes a ranged attack at my normal attack bonus, then I have made a standard attack action, not a Rapid Shot, which means I have no remaining attacks.

But, this rule does work just fine for Two-Weapon Fighting. Since wielding a weapon in each hand means the character takes the Primary hand penalty for both regular attacks and attacks with the primary hand in a two-weapon attack, this means that a character wielding two weapons *could* make a single attack (with the -6) and then decide to make it a full attack action, with no declaration. But, again, since the Primary hand penalty applies for regular attacks and attacks as part of a two-weapon attack, I think the rule still works fine.

[Andezzar]

You are mistaken. The TWF, flurry of blows etc. penalty only apply if you take the Full Attack action. Simply having a weapon in the other hand does not mean you are dual wielding.

The dysfunction is that you can make one attack (as a standard action) and then decide to make additional attacks as a Full Attack. If you do and decide to use TWF, FoB etc. on that Full Attack you used the wrong attack bonus for the first attack, because it didn't have the appropriate penalty.

[Denver]

You are mistaken. The TWF, flurry of blows etc. penalty only apply if you take the Full Attack action. Simply having a weapon in the other hand does not mean you are dual wielding.

Exactly. So if you do not take the penalty for Flurry of Blows or for Rapid Shot, then you are not making a full attack action - you are making a standard attack action. If you make a standard attack action, then you have no remaining attacks to which the quoted rule applies. ["After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks [...]"]

Further, page 160 of the PHB states that wielding a weapon in each hand means you take the primary handed penalty on regular attacks *and* on attacks as part of a two-weapon attack.

The dysfunction is that you can make one attack (as a standard action) and then decide to make additional attacks as a Full Attack. If you do and decide to use TWF, FoB etc. on that Full Attack you used the wrong attack bonus for the first attack, because it didn't have the appropriate penalty.

But deciding to make a move-action after your first attack can only occur in situations under which you have multiple attacks. Which, for our discussion regarding Flurry of Blows or Rapid Shot means that those first attacks must carry the correct penalties, or they are simply standard attacks. Standard attack actions do not allow for multiple attacks, so you cannot invoke the rule to break apart your multiple attacks if you do not have multiple attacks.

This does mean that a Monk could use Flurry of Blows to make their first attack (with the correct penalty), and then decide to invoke the aforementioned rule, because then that monk *would* have remaining attacks to use for the "instead" part of the clause.

[Sliver]

Further, page 160 of the PHB states that wielding a weapon in each hand means you take the primary handed penalty on regular attacks *and* on attacks as part of a two-weapon attack.

It's not the wielding itself that gives you the penalty, but the wish to gain an extra attack with the second weapon. Unless you are saying that you can't hold anything in your other hand, since it could be an improvised weapon. Or even your fist is a weapon, so you actually always suffer the penalty.

As with all the full round actions, you can choose to take the penalty and not take the extra attacks, but you if you don't take the penalty, you can't later decide whether or not you turn it into a special full round attack...

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand.

[Andezzar]

It's not the wielding itself that gives you the penalty, but the wish to gain an extra attack with the second weapon. Unless you are saying that you can't hold anything in your other hand, since it could be an improvised weapon. Or even your fist is a weapon, so you actually always suffer the penalty.

As with all the full round actions, you can choose to take the penalty and not take the extra attacks, but you if you don't take the penalty, you can't later decide whether or not you turn it into a special full round attack...

The thing is before making the first attack, you need not have decided yet whether you make a full attack or not. The rule says that you can decide after the first attack. There is no rule allowing you to take a penalty without the appropriate conditions (i.e. using TWF), just in case. So after the first attack (without penalty) one rule says that you can decide to make a full attack (without prohibiting TWF or similar abilities) and another says that the first attack must have had the penalty. That is dysfunctional.

@Denver: Even with only one attack you can make full attacks. It has no benefit and only drawbacks, but you are allowed to do it.

[Flickerdart]

Unrelated to the full attack thing:

A magma mephit possesses the supernatural ability to transform into a mobile pool of lava, but no way to restore its original form.

[Chronos]

A monk is standing right next to someone that she wants to beat up. She decides to make a Flurry of Blows, and accepts a -2 penalty. At this point, she assumes that she will be making a full attack. However, it turns out that the enemy was weaker than she thought, and she takes it down with her first attack. Even though she was originally planning to make a full attack, at this point she still has the option to move instead (maybe to put her right next to some other enemy, in preparation for the next round). If she does this, then she does not gain any of the benefit of the Flurry of Blows, since it turns out that she only used a standard action for her attack. She's probably a bit annoyed that she took that -2 to her attack roll to no benefit, but that's already done.

In other words: Occasionally inconvenient for melee types, but not a dysfunction.

[dhasenan]

Since it's never otherwise specified, undead creatures formed by applying templates to living creatures follow the same aging rules as their living counterparts.

You filled your crypt with skeletons to safeguard your effects unto the end of time? If you used the skeleton of, say, a dwarf who died of old age, they'll fall apart as soon as you finish the spell. If you an elf for their skeletons, they'll last until the person would have died of old age.

To solve this, you can use a race that doesn't have aging characteristics defined or an undead variety that isn't a template. Wights are fine, for instance, as are crocodile skeletons.

Of course, this is most amusing with liches. You committed unspeakable evil to become immortal, and it worked! Whenever you die, you'll be resurrected 1d10 days later. Except...you eventually die of old age. And you're resurrected 1d10 days later. And you immediately die of old age. And you're resurrected 1d10 days later. And you immediately die.

[illyahr]

Since it's never otherwise specified, undead creatures formed by applying templates to living creatures follow the same aging rules as their living counterparts.

You filled your crypt with skeletons to safeguard your effects unto the end of time? If you used the skeleton of, say, a dwarf who died of old age, they'll fall apart as soon as you finish the spell. If you an elf for their skeletons, they'll last until the person would have died of old age.

To solve this, you can use a race that doesn't have aging characteristics defined or an undead variety that isn't a template. Wights are fine, for instance, as are crocodile skeletons.

Of course, this is most amusing with liches. You committed unspeakable evil to become immortal, and it worked! Whenever you die, you'll be resurrected 1d10 days later. Except...you eventually die of old age. And you're resurrected 1d10 days later. And you immediately die of old age. And you're resurrected 1d10 days later. And you immediately die.

Wait, that can't be right.

*checks SRD* Holy Sh- Well, that's something awkward.

[PallentisLunam]

Except you can't die if you're not alive. Undead creatures are not alive by definition therefore they cannot die. This is distinct from being destroyed. You will notice that undead are never killed, only destroyed.

[illyahr]

Except you can't die if you're not alive. Undead creatures are not alive by definition therefore they cannot die. This is distinct from being destroyed. You will notice that undead are never killed, only destroyed.

They are immune to death effects, not death itself. Most of this is covered by being immune to [death] abilities, immunity to things requiring a Fortitude save, and a lack of a Con score. However, anything that doesn't fall into one of these three circumvents it. Age isn't a [death] effect, it doesn't allow a Fortitude save, and, by RAW, a Con score doesn't effect it either AFAIK.

[PallentisLunam]

They are immune to death effects, not death itself. Most of this is covered by being immune to [death] abilities, immunity to things requiring a Fortitude save, and a lack of a Con score. However, anything that doesn't fall into one of these three circumvents it. Age isn't a [death] effect, it doesn't allow a Fortitude save, and, by RAW, a Con score doesn't effect it either AFAIK.

I never said age was a death effect. I said undead don't die, they are destroyed, and since aging causes death, not destruction, it doesn't apply to the undead.

Being immune to something is distinct from being uneffected by it. Is an ogre immune to Charm Person or does Charm Person simply not apply to an ogre?

[illyahr]

I never said age was a death effect. I said undead don't die, they are destroyed, and since aging causes death, not destruction, it doesn't apply to the undead.

Being immune to something is distinct from being uneffected by it. Is an ogre immune to Charm Person or does Charm Person simply not apply to an ogre?

They are 'destroyed' when their HP reaches 0. This is in the rules of the template. They die when they reach their maximum age. This is in the rules of the base creature. Nothing in the template prevents this.

[Andezzar]

A monk is standing right next to someone that she wants to beat up. She decides to make a Flurry of Blows, and accepts a -2 penalty. At this point, she assumes that she will be making a full attack. However, it turns out that the enemy was weaker than she thought, and she takes it down with her first attack. Even though she was originally planning to make a full attack, at this point she still has the option to move instead (maybe to put her right next to some other enemy, in preparation for the next round). If she does this, then she does not gain any of the benefit of the Flurry of Blows, since it turns out that she only used a standard action for her attack. She's probably a bit annoyed that she took that -2 to her attack roll to no benefit, but that's already done.

In other words: Occasionally inconvenient for melee types, but not a dysfunction.

That works. The problem arises in the opposite setup.
A monk is standing next to an opponent. She thinks that this opponent is weak and so opts to make a standard attack to be able to move away/towards other opponents afterwards. Unfortunately she does not deal enough damage to drop the opponent.
Now the Full Attack rules allow her to decide whether to make a full attack after this first attack, and the FoB rules allow her to make additional attacks with a full attack. However if she does all attacks must take a penalty. Since the first one did not have that penalty, she is both allowed and not allowed to use FoB. That's what I call dysfunctional.

[Sliver]

That works. The problem arises in the opposite setup.
A monk is standing next to an opponent. She thinks that this opponent is weak and so opts to make a standard attack to be able to move away/towards other opponents afterwards. Unfortunately she does not deal enough damage to drop the opponent.
Now the Full Attack rules allow her to decide whether to make a full attack after this first attack, and the FoB rules allow her to make additional attacks with a full attack. However if she does all attacks must take a penalty. Since the first one did not have that penalty, she is both allowed and not allowed to use FoB. That's what I call dysfunctional.

For a monk, there isn't really an opposite setup.

A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

A monk basically must declare that they are doing a full attack flurry, and only after the first attack they can say that they rather move instead. They can't do a standard action attack and then convert it to a full attack while still wanting to flurry.

[Andezzar]

A monk basically must declare that they are doing a full attack flurry, and only after the first attack they can say that they rather move instead. They can't do a standard action attack and then convert it to a full attack while still wanting to flurry.

There is no rule saying that the monk must decide before the first attack. When he decides after the first attack to use the full attack, he is allowed to flurry (because he uses the full attack action) and not allowed (because not all attacks have the appropriate penalty). That is the dysfunction. It works the same way with someone having a weapon in each hand.

Deciding before the first attack simply avoids the dysfunction, it does not make the rules functional. Thats just like saying drown healing is not dysfunctional because you do not put dying people into water.

[Pyrous]

There is no rule saying that the monk must decide before the first attack. When he decides after the first attack to use the full attack, he is allowed to flurry (because he uses the full attack action) and not allowed (because not all attacks have the appropriate penalty). That is the dysfunction. It works the same way with someone having a weapon in each hand.

Deciding before the first attack simply avoids the dysfunction, it does not make the rules functional. Thats just like saying drown healing is not dysfunctional because you do not put dying people into water.

The Full Attack rule applies to all full attacks, the Flurry of Blows rule applies only to the flurry of blows full attack. Specific trumps general, the monk is not allowed to flurry. Not a dysfunction.

[Andezzar]

The Full Attack rule applies to all full attacks, the Flurry of Blows rule applies only to the flurry of blows full attack. Specific trumps general, the monk is not allowed to flurry. Not a dysfunction.

No, there is no "flurry of blows full attack" action. The monk can use flurry of blows. To do so he must use the Full Attack action.

A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

There also is no TWF full attack action. it is just an option you can use with the full attack action.

[Denver]

That works. The problem arises in the opposite setup.
A monk is standing next to an opponent. She thinks that this opponent is weak and so opts to make a standard attack to be able to move away/towards other opponents afterwards. Unfortunately she does not deal enough damage to drop the opponent.
Now the Full Attack rules allow her to decide whether to make a full attack after this first attack, and the FoB rules allow her to make additional attacks with a full attack. However if she does all attacks must take a penalty. Since the first one did not have that penalty, she is both allowed and not allowed to use FoB. That's what I call dysfunctional.

In that instance, she made a standard attack action, which means that the rules for resolving full attack actions cannot be used. Further, since she used a standard attack action, she does not have enough action in her turn left to perform a full round action (the "full attack"), which is what is required for her Flurry of Blows. Since she did not make a "full attack," she cannot use Flurry of Blows.

I just don't see the dysfunction.

one rule says that you can decide to make a full attack (without prohibiting TWF or similar abilities) and another says that the first attack must have had the penalty

To be quite clear, one rule says you can choose to continue your full attack, or you can choose to break it apart into a standard attack and a move action - the rules never says you can trade in the move action for the remainder of the full attack.["After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" [...] ]

It does not say you can decide to turn a move action into another attack, or "exchange" the move action for a full round action. And, since the rule comes under the section for full round actions, not for standard actions, I'd need to see a similar rule under the standard action section that allows for one to make a standard attack and then choose to make it a full attack.

As read - the rule seems clear that it is stating how to resolve a full round action when the player desires to break it up, not how to resolve a standard action when the player wishes for a full round action.

It's not the wielding itself that gives you the penalty, but the wish to gain an extra attack with the second weapon. Unless you are saying that you can't hold anything in your other hand, since it could be an improvised weapon. Or even your fist is a weapon, so you actually always suffer the penalty.

I don't see that in the text: it says that regular attacks suffer the main-hand penalty when wielding a weapon in each hand. It also says that main-hand attacks suffer the main hand penalty and off-hand attacks suffer the off-hand penalty when both attacks are made in a round.

The rule also requires the character to "wield a weapon," which, when defined, limits the usage of what it means to wield. (Provided that the looked-for definition still agrees with the original usage.) In this way, the usage of "wield a weapon" prevents the Two Weapon Fighting penalty from applying to characters who hold one weapon in one hand.

This does mean that it affects characters who wish to use their shield as a weapon, but those rules don't disagree with the Two-Weapon Fighting rule.

[ShurikVch]

They are 'destroyed' when their HP reaches 0. This is in the rules of the template. They die when they reach their maximum age. This is in the rules of the base creature. Nothing in the template prevents this.

Wouldn't "Con: -" prevent it?
Only creatures who have Constitution score are living creatures.
If somebody have "Con: -", then it's mean "not a living creature"
How you can die at all, if you are not a living creature in the first place?

[squiggit]

Moving after your first attack is a special note beneath the description of full attacks and in turn under the heading of full-round actions. So you start your full attack, but after the first attack you can choose to forgo the rest of your attacks and take a move action instead.

That seems pretty straight forward and I'm not seeing any way to interpret that as "you can take a standard action and then turn it into a full attack later". It's the other way around because the ability is specifically a subset of the full attack action.

[Jormengand]

Also, what happens when a creature dies? Is there actually anything to say that a creature who dies actually gets the Dead condition?