Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[death390]

don't forget the dysfunction for page 139 of the rules compedium that defines spontaneous casters as casters who can cast ALL of thier known spells at any time using spell slots. meaning that beguilers, druids, and clerics are not spontaneous caster due to not being able to cast all thier spells known. (druids and clerics Know all thier spells at level 1 just can't cast them, same as beguilers).

[Dagroth]

don't forget the dysfunction for page 139 of the rules compedium that defines spontaneous casters as casters who can cast ALL of thier known spells at any time using spell slots. meaning that beguilers, druids, and clerics are not spontaneous caster due to not being able to cast all thier spells known. (druids and clerics Know all thier spells at level 1 just can't cast them, same as beguilers).

Actually, Clerics don't know their spells... they are Granted their spells. I think Druids are the same.

[The Viscount]

You might as well call the favored soul lacking alignment restrictions at all dysfunctional. The core of their fluff is gaining divine power from some source for some reason: nowhere does it say their beliefs need to be in line with said source for it to be able to grant them power.

After all, evil gods and good characters can easily have overlapping enemies.

Favored soul has alignment restrictions, and right where they should be.

A favored soul is often of the same alignment as her deity, though some are one step away. For example, a favored soul could serve a lawful good deity and be neutral good herself. A favored soul may not be neutral unless her deity is neutral.

That is the same alignment restriction that cleric has.

[Jormengand]

If a monk wears a Monk's Belt, her AC and unarmed damage are treated as a monk. Said monk is 5 levels higher than her.

[Kurald Galain]

If a monk wears a Monk's Belt, her AC and unarmed damage are treated as a monk. Said monk is 5 levels higher than her.

Yes, that's the reason the belt exists. I don't see what's wrong with that?

[Jormengand]

Yes, that's the reason the belt exists. I don't see what's wrong with that?

Read the sentence very carefully. Her AC and unarmed damage, themselves, are treated as a monk. Not as the AC and unarmed damage thereof, but two of her bonuses are treated as a monk in their own right in accordance with the actual wording of the item.

[georgie_leech]

Read the sentence very carefully. Her AC and unarmed damage, themselves, are treated as a monk. Not as the AC and unarmed damage thereof, but two of her bonuses are treated as a monk in their own right in accordance with the actual wording of the item.

Meaning, her AC and damage are presumably running around separate, punching things. Friendly reminder that grammar is used to make meaning clear, not deliberately misinterpreting a clear rule.

[Jormengand]

Meaning, her AC and damage are presumably running around separate, punching things. Friendly reminder that grammar is used to make meaning clear, not deliberately misinterpreting a clear rule.

I mean, the intended meaning is clear, but it's clearly intended that monks be proficient with unarmed strikes, drowning not heal you, and and AC bonuses actually exist, but that's what this thread is for. There is no possible way that what the monk's belt actually says can mean what it's supposed to, as far as I can tell. There's no way to say "I am treated as a father five years older" and mean "I am treated as though my father was five years older than he is" either.

[Troacctid]

That sounds like it only arises from a specific reading of the text.

[Jormengand]

That sounds like it only arises from a specific reading of the text.

Not really. "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher" actually cannot mean what they want it to mean, which is "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage are treated as those of a monk of five levels higher". I cannot see a way of parsing that sentence where it means that. I can see a way to parse it that it means that they are given a light snack or reward, or "Treated", in the manner in which a monk of five levels higher would be. I can see a way to parse it where they are counted to be a monk in their own right, which is the intuitive reading. But I can't see a way where the sentence, as it is written, means what it's supposed to. I mean, I can see why it's written that way (They accidentally mashed up the ideas of "The wearer is treated as a monk of five levels higher for determining..." and "The wearer's AC and unarmed damage are treated as..." into a single sentence which doesn't mean the same thing), but as written it doesn't mean what it's meant to.

[Troacctid]

It sounds like you're making the case that it's a typo. Which we also aren't counting as dysfunctional.

[Jormengand]

It sounds like you're making the case that it's a typo. Which we also aren't counting as dysfunctional.

It's not a typo (A "typographical error", an error that results from a mistake of typing). "Share laser form" is a typo, 1d33 is a typo; an entire sentence which is written wrongly (such as the spell which causes objects to take damage to each creature or object they touch, or this monk's belt example) is beyond the scope of a typo - it's an error that could have been made just as easily while writing as it could be while typing, for a start. The first entry in this thread, for example, could have been that someone just forgot to put a word in. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe the possibility that someone might care about the distinction never occurred to them. But we don't actually know. I mean, you know, every dysfunction in the game could be because of typos, but we kinda have to assume that everything beyond simple letter substitution, letter omission or formatting error was typed the way that it was in the writer's mind.

[Kurald Galain]

It sounds like you're making the case that it's a typo. Which we also aren't counting as dysfunctional.

Yes, I agree.

Generally speaking, I'd say that things like "rule A when combined with rule B gives hilarious exception C" are fun to read about and a good example of what "dysfunctional" means; whereas things like "sentence A when taken entirely out of context can technically be taken to read the opposite of what it clearly means" are not.

[Jormengand]

Yes, I agree.

Generally speaking, I'd say that things like "rule A when combined with rule B gives hilarious exception C" are fun to read about and a good example of what "dysfunctional" means; whereas things like "sentence A when taken entirely out of context can technically be taken to read the opposite of what it clearly means" are not.

Given that the sentence cannot mean what it is supposed to, it's an obvious dysfunction.

Also, by your logic, the dysfunctions in the handbook for Aasimar, Diopsid, Elf, Halfling, Hellbred, Vampire, Necropolitan, Xorvintaal Dragon, Bard (Savage), Cleric, Dread Necromancer, Drow ACFs, Druid and Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Knight, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage, Wizard, Armour Master: Deflective Shield, Various PrCs, Arcane Trickster, Archmage, Assassin, Black Flame Zealot, Bladesinger, Disciple of Xi, Eldritch Knight, Foe Hunter, Knight of the Thorn, Order of the Cockatrice Cavelier, Rage Mage, Ruby Knight Vindicator, Sacred Fist, Shadow Sun Ninja, and some other things in the spoilers below prestige classes because seriously I'm not looking through everything, "Aren't real dysfunctions" because it's clear what they're supposed to do. Yes, it's clear what they're meant to do, they just don't.

A few, such as swordsage and foe hunter, are genuinely typos and should probably be removed, though.

[Troacctid]

Given that the sentence cannot mean what it is supposed to, it's an obvious dysfunction.

At best it's a grammatical error. The way you initially described it is just nonsense.

[Jormengand]

At best it's a grammatical error. The way you initially described it is just nonsense.

I mean, it might be, but the main error is not "This sentence is dumbly written but ultimately means what it's meant to", or even "This sentence is ambiguous" so much as "This sentence can only mean two things, both of which are hilariously dumb and nothing like what it's supposed to."

[Morphic tide]

At best it's a grammatical error. The way you initially described it is just nonsense.

It's a grammatical error that leads to bonuses categorized as Monk bonuses, as in the bonuses themselves have the Monk type.

Everyone reading it filtered out this insane, grammar-error-based, RAW because of how utterly insane it is. The Rules as Written, following English grammar rules, result in this.

[Debatra]

Given that the sentence cannot mean what it is supposed to, it's an obvious dysfunction.

Also, by your logic, the dysfunctions in the handbook for Aasimar, Diopsid, Elf, Halfling, Hellbred, Vampire, Necropolitan, Xorvintaal Dragon, Bard (Savage), Cleric, Dread Necromancer, Drow ACFs, Druid and Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Knight, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Swordsage, Unarmed Swordsage, Wizard, Armour Master: Deflective Shield, Various PrCs, Arcane Trickster, Archmage, Assassin, Black Flame Zealot, Bladesinger, Disciple of Xi, Eldritch Knight, Foe Hunter, Knight of the Thorn, Order of the Cockatrice Cavelier, Rage Mage, Ruby Knight Vindicator, Sacred Fist, Shadow Sun Ninja, and some other things in the spoilers below prestige classes because seriously I'm not looking through everything, "Aren't real dysfunctions" because it's clear what they're supposed to do. Yes, it's clear what they're meant to do, they just don't.

A few, such as swordsage and foe hunter, are genuinely typos and should probably be removed, though.

I too am not going to look over the entire handbook right now; but yes, there are several things in there that shouldn't be. We've managed to avoid adding most if not all of that sequester crap though.

[Kurald Galain]

At best it's a grammatical error. The way you initially described it is just nonsense.

Yep. "Dysfunction" does not mean "any sentence that can be deliberately misunderstood if you try hard enough".

I too am not going to look over the entire handbook right now; but yes, there are several things in there that shouldn't be.

That's also true. I've found that if one person makes a silly claim and nobody contradicts it in the first 24 hours, it ends up in the "handbook" and never gets removed. That doesn't really help.

[Dagroth]

Yep. "Dysfunction" does not mean "any sentence that can be deliberately misunderstood if you try hard enough".

*sigh*

The sentence does not make grammatical sense. It's not that deliberately misunderstanding it is the problem... it's that you have to misunderstand it in order for it to do what is intended.

[Troacctid]

An editing error that makes a sentence ungrammatical is essentially a typo.

[Jormengand]

It's not that deliberately misunderstanding it is the problem... it's that you have to misunderstand it in order for it to do what is intended.

Exactly and perfectly this.

An editing error that makes a sentence ungrammatical is essentially a typo.

It's perfectly grammatical, it just means something completely different from the intended meaning.

[Hish]

Read the sentence very carefully. Her AC and unarmed damage, themselves, are treated as a monk. Not as the AC and unarmed damage thereof, but two of her bonuses are treated as a monk in their own right in accordance with the actual wording of the item.

But you can't have an AC bonus that is a monk. An AC bonus is not a tangible thing. At best it's an idea. A monk is a tangible thing. So clearly it doesn't mean that your AC bonus gets up and punches things, because that's not possible.
So we have to look for more plausible interpretations of the text. Like, for example, the character gains an AC bonus as a monk.
Clumsy wording, not a dysfunction.

[Socksy]

On an entirely different note, I found a dysfunction in some of the Forgotten Realms stuff.

If the zin-carla's creator loses control of it for any reason, it becomes a free-willed undead, seeking only vengeance against its creator. It gains the supernatural ability to know the direction and distance to the being that animated it. If it manages to slay its creator, the zin-carla crumbles to dust.

So what happens to a zin-carla whose creator dies through any means other than being destroyed by her undead? Does it continue seeking vengeance on a dead person? What if the zin-carla gets its freedom because its creator died?

[Jormengand]

But you can't have an AC bonus that is a monk. An AC bonus is not a tangible thing. At best it's an idea. A monk is a tangible thing. So clearly it doesn't mean that your AC bonus gets up and punches things, because that's not possible.

That's exactly WHY it's dysfunctional, because the ONLY valid interpretations are both insane.

So we have to look for more plausible interpretations of the text. Like, for example, the character gains an AC bonus as a monk.
Clumsy wording, not a dysfunction.

That's NOT a plausible or even possible interpretation. The sentence, as written, flat out CANNOT mean that. Your RAI has no power here.

[Kurald Galain]

That's NOT a plausible or even possible interpretation.

Of course it is HisHighestMinio interprets it that way, and therefore ipso facto it is a possible interpretation. It also happens to be more plausible than your interpretation.

[Morphic tide]

Of course it is HisHighestMinio interprets it that way, and therefore ipso facto it is a possible interpretation. It also happens to be more plausible than your interpretation.

What he means is that following the grammar rules of English, it's the only valid interpretation. We all ignore the grammar rules to make it make sense and parse out the intended meaning. RAW, it leads to having a bonus that is classified as a Monk-type bonus. RAI, it's giving you an effective five levels of Monk for the bonuses.

[Jormengand]

What he means is that following the grammar rules of English, it's the only valid interpretation. We all ignore the grammar rules to make it make sense and parse out the intended meaning. RAW, it leads to having a bonus that is classified as a Monk-type bonus. RAI, it's giving you an effective five levels of Monk for the bonuses.

Basically this, my pronouns notwithstanding. Of course you can interpret the sentence to mean something which it technically doesn't in English. In a real game, I would agree, just like I'd agree that you can't drown heal or that you know exactly what the minimum caster level required to cast a 7th-level wizard spell is, come on, but only because you have to make that decision for yourself, in a RACSD or RAI kind of way. This thread is the RAW dysfunction thread.

[Flickerdart]

On an entirely different note, I found a dysfunction in some of the Forgotten Realms stuff.



So what happens to a zin-carla whose creator dies through any means other than being destroyed by her undead? Does it continue seeking vengeance on a dead person? What if the zin-carla gets its freedom because its creator died?

It's entirely possible to seek vengeance on a dead person. In D&D, dead people can become alive (or undead) relatively easily. The zin-carla could also seek passage to the outer plane that the animator (now a planar petitioner) inhabits and destroy its creator there. A slightly more creative interpretation would have the zin-carla go after the animator's legacy, friends, children, etc.

[The Viscount]

If a Marrash hits you with a taklif arrow, you are infected with faster Filth Fever. If you fail any fortitude save after that, you die instantly. I think it's supposed to be focused on saves vs the disease, but they didn't word it right, and you can't undo it.