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

[Jormengand]

On the second point, technically they can get off when the creature dies, since a corpse is treated as an object and the ability specifies that it latches to a creature.

Yeah, except that it doesn't specify that it stops being latched when the thing isn't a creature, only that it initially latches to a creature. It also means that a skeleton can have a weasel eternally latched to it until the weasel dies of thirst. In fact, if the weasel is itself undead (so long as it isn't a skeleton or something else that loses its special attacks) it can also stay latched forever and can never get off.

The ride never ends.

Irrepcective of this, it's kind silly that the weasel cannot voluntarily detach.

---

A rhino deals 4d6+24 points of damage when it makes a charge. This doesn't change its weapon damage to 4d6+24, it just deals damage when it makes the charge (and then if its attack hits, it deals normal damage to the charge target). This may even be intentional (I doubt it: it's no coincidence that it's double the normal weapon damage). Just one problem: who does it deal the extra damage to? Nobody knows!

[PallentisLunam]

Yeah, except that it doesn't specify that it stops being latched when the thing isn't a creature, only that it initially latches to a creature. It also means that a skeleton can have a weasel eternally latched to it until the weasel dies of thirst. In fact, if the weasel is itself undead (so long as it isn't a skeleton or something else that loses its special attacks) it can also stay latched forever and can never get off.

The ride never ends.

Irrepcective of this, it's kind silly that the weasel cannot voluntarily detach.

Once again this is an issue of do the rules have to say something for it to be possible or do the rules have to forbid something for it to be impossible. It would seem to me that unless the rules for attach specifically say that the weasel can't let go then there is no reason, other than trying to force a dysfunction, to say it couldn't.

Although you are correct that if a weasel hits a target it must attach this isn't necessarily a dysfunction by itself. Perhaps this is simply such an innate method of attack that the weasel cannot resist employing it once begun.

A rhino deals 4d6+24 points of damage when it makes a charge. This doesn't change its weapon damage to 4d6+24, it just deals damage when it makes the charge (and then if its attack hits, it deals normal damage to the charge target). This may even be intentional (I doubt it: it's no coincidence that it's double the normal weapon damage). Just one problem: who does it deal the extra damage to? Nobody knows!

This is covered under the Powerful Charge special ability. A powerful charge works just like a normal charge but with extra damage.

[Jormengand]

Once again this is an issue of do the rules have to say something for it to be possible or do the rules have to forbid something for it to be impossible.

Can you use the fireball spell to fly just because the rules don't say you can't? Of course not. If the rules don't say there's a way of detaching, the weasel can't detach. It's also simply not clear how attaching works at all, so there's no precedent for what kind of action it should be to detach or where the weasel ends up.

[PallentisLunam]

Can you use the fireball spell to fly just because the rules don't say you can't? Of course not. If the rules don't say there's a way of detaching, the weasel can't detach. It's also simply not clear how attaching works at all, so there's no precedent for what kind of action it should be to detach or where the weasel ends up.

Okay, silly answer first: I guess it's impossible to stop speaking then because the rules don't specifically tell you how to do so.

It actually is pretty clear how attaching works. The weasel hits with a bite attack and it attaches. It is attached by its teeth to the target. Letting go of something is a free action. Depending on the size of the weasel's target it either can or cannot occupy the same space as the target, so it would either end up in the same space as the target or in the nearest legal space.

[Jormengand]

I suppose the other silly thing is that the weasel can attach itself to fine-sized creatures and then get carried around by them, irrespective of the fact that "Attached" doesn't actually have a rules meaning so it's still not clear what it does (is it a grapple? Can the creature act normally? Does it follow some other kind of special rule? How does the weasel get off? Nobody knows!)

[PallentisLunam]

I suppose the other silly thing is that the weasel can attach itself to fine-sized creatures and then get carried around by them, irrespective of the fact that "Attached" doesn't actually have a rules meaning so it's still not clear what it does (is it a grapple? Can the creature act normally? Does it follow some other kind of special rule? How does the weasel get off? Nobody knows!)

Is it a grapple? Do the rules say its a grapple?
Can the creature act normally? Do the rules say it can't?
Does it follow some other kind of special rule? Do the rules say it does?
How does the weasel get off? Hey now. That's kinda a personal question don't you think. Do you know the weasel well enough to be asking about that kind of stuff?

[georgie_leech]

I suppose the other silly thing is that the weasel can attach itself to fine-sized creatures and then get carried around by them, irrespective of the fact that "Attached" doesn't actually have a rules meaning so it's still not clear what it does (is it a grapple? Can the creature act normally? Does it follow some other kind of special rule? How does the weasel get off? Nobody knows!)

That Fine part seems like a stronger argument. The attach itself doesn't do much, but it enables other things. Like, to use your dire weasel example, they can blood drain things while attached.

The better question Is, what happens when something attaches to a swarm?

[nailbudday]

As far as the 'unable to detach' thing-that might actually be intentional. As far as I've always heard weasels are known mostly for being incredibly stubborn little things and refusing to let go of something once they've taken a bite out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the people that wrote that statblock thought that weasels were incapable of letting go of something in the same way that people liked to say that pitbulls and bulldogs had jaws that locked shut once they grabbed something, regardless of whether it was true or not.

[PallentisLunam]

That Fine part seems like a stronger argument. The attach itself doesn't do much, but it enables other things. Like, to use your dire weasel example, they can blood drain things while attached.

The better question Is, what happens when something attaches to a swarm?

Sorry to be the wet blanket but you can't bite a swarm. Swarms are immune to weapon damage

[georgie_leech]

Sorry to be the wet blanket but you can't bite a swarm. Swarms are immune to weapon damage

It doesn't say you need to damage though, just hit. Last I checked, Swarms were immune to the damage but not getting hit, no?

[PallentisLunam]

It doesn't say you need to damage though, just hit. Last I checked, Swarms were immune to the damage but not getting hit, no?

... touché

[Jormengand]

Sorry to be the wet blanket but you can't bite a swarm. Swarms are immune to weapon damage

Sorry to be the blanket on fire, but swarms of tiny creatures take half slashing and piercing damage but are not immune to weapon damage.

As far as the 'unable to detach' thing-that might actually be intentional. As far as I've always heard weasels are known mostly for being incredibly stubborn little things and refusing to let go of something once they've taken a bite out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if the people that wrote that statblock thought that weasels were incapable of letting go of something in the same way that people liked to say that pitbulls and bulldogs had jaws that locked shut once they grabbed something, regardless of whether it was true or not.

But that's the thing: we have no idea whether or not it's intentional or what "Attaching" even does.

[georgie_leech]

Sorry to be the blanket on fire, but swarms of tiny creatures take half slashing and piercing damage but are not immune to weapon damage.

More to the point, it doesn't matter, because hitting and damaging aren't the same thing. Dire Weasels can attack to Diminutive swarms all day long.

[Jormengand]

More to the point, it doesn't matter, because hitting and damaging aren't the same thing. Dire Weasels can attack to Diminutive swarms all day long.

That too, but if the arguments in this thread have taught me anything, someone, somewhere will be convinced that it does matter because it's "Common sense".

[georgie_leech]

That too, but if the arguments in this thread have taught me anything, someone, somewhere will be convinced that it does matter because it's "Common sense".

Perhaps. I hold that there's a distinction between "common sense interpretation of the words" and "references named game terms" as I argue for that common sense though. In this case the fact that latching on is ill defined is an asset; we don't need to worry about what that Dire Weasel is doing to know it latched onto that Centipede Swarm

[PallentisLunam]

Sorry to be the blanket on fire, but swarms of tiny creatures take half slashing and piercing damage but are not immune to weapon damage.

Well, that's what I get for posting from memory

[Nifft]

In this case the fact that latching on is ill defined is an asset; we don't need to worry about what that Dire Weasel is doing to know it latched onto that Centipede Swarm

Dire Weasel invents Bug Juice.

[ShurikVch]

In this case, the ones for the Craft Construct feat. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I believe it follows the usual "half the base price in gp, 1/25th the price in xp" rule.

Ah, I see: 1250 gp for raw materials, and 100 XP
I'm wondering: it's possible to lower the price by usage of Diplomacy for haggling - 10% discount; will it include 10 XP?
And how about the 25 XP 1/month discount from Mercantile Background?
Also, if the Carrionette in question will be re-sold at some point, does it mean newer buyer will pay 100 XP too? How much XP may be accumulated this way? And is it possible for Carrionette to level-up from it? (20 buyer until the next level)


Also, there's a thing about the Craft Construct feat:

A creature with this feat can repair constructs that have taken damage. In one day of work, the creature can repair up to 20 points of damage by expending 50 gp per point of damage repaired.

and Simulacrum spell:

A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.

Unless I'm mistaken - neither of them says Construct/Simulacrum is immune to Conjuration (healing)...

[flare'90]

Ah, I see: 1250 gp for raw materials, and 100 XP
I'm wondering: it's possible to lower the price by usage of Diplomacy for haggling - 10% discount; will it include 10 XP?
And how about the 25 XP 1/month discount from Mercantile Background?
Also, if the Carrionette in question will be re-sold at some point, does it mean newer buyer will pay 100 XP too? How much XP may be accumulated this way? And is it possible for Carrionette to level-up from it? (20 buyer until the next level)


Also, there's a thing about the Craft Construct feat:and Simulacrum spell:Unless I'm mistaken - neither of them says Construct/Simulacrum is immune to Conjuration (healing)...

The Construct type says that construct can't heal on their own but can be repaired, and then tells you to see the individual descriptions. This suggest that "repair" and "heal" are distinct terms, which is compounded by the repair damage spells talking about repiring a construct, not healing it. Consider also that Warforged have to include the fact that they can heal naturally and be healed by magic specifically. This suggest that conjuration (healing) spells have no effect on costructs (living constructs excluded), so the immunity would be rendundant. And that explains also why the repair spells are transmutation, not conjuration.
By contrast the Undead type states that undeads can be healed by negative energy.

Edit: Altrough, reading a bit more, nowhere it says that the simulacrum is a construct. It's formed from ice and/or snow, but that doesn't mean it's nonliving.

[Blue Jay]

Also, there's a thing about the Craft Construct feat:and Simulacrum spell:Unless I'm mistaken - neither of them says Construct/Simulacrum is immune to Conjuration (healing)...

The cure wounds spells state that they only work on living creatures. I'm not sure that applies to all Conjuration (healing) spells, because I didn't check; but it at least applies to the cure line.

So, "cannot be cured" isn't a creature-type trait: it's a property of the spells.

[ShurikVch]

The Construct type says that construct can't heal on their own but can be repaired, and then tells you to see the individual descriptions.

Emphasis on important part: in case of Conjuration (healing), Constructs aren't healing "on their own".

This suggest that "repair" and "heal" are distinct terms, which is compounded by the repair damage spells talking about repiring a construct, not healing it.

While they, indeed, may be distinct, it doesn't make them mutually exclusive.

Consider also that Warforged have to include the fact that they can heal naturally and be healed by magic specifically. This suggest that conjuration (healing) spells have no effect on costructs (living constructs excluded), so the immunity would be rendundant.

On the contrary: Warforged says they can heal naturally, because usually, Constructs can't; Warforged says they can be healed by magic, because otherwise - it would look like Warforged can be healed naturally, but not by magic...

And that explains also why the repair spells are transmutation, not conjuration.
By contrast the Undead type states that undeads can be healed by negative energy.

Big deal! Spells to heal Undead aren't Conjuration too!

The cure wounds spells state that they only work on living creatures. I'm not sure that applies to all Conjuration (healing) spells, because I didn't check; but it at least applies to the cure line.

So, "cannot be cured" isn't a creature-type trait: it's a property of the spells.

Well, neither Heal spell, nor Lay on Hands CF description doesn't say it works just on living creatures...
From non-Core examples, we have:
Close Wounds, Channeled Divine Health, Healing Circle, Healing Touch, Insignia of Healing, Regenerate Ring, Shared Healing, and Tree Healing spells;
Touch of Health and Mend Wounds psionic powers;
Aura of Triumph and Rallying Strike martial maneuvers

[ross]

Nothing. But how many powers (a) have a single target, (b) strike that target and (c) do elemental damage when they strike it? The person who posted it couldn't find anything except that Energy Conversion technically works if you hit yourself with the main ray.

They also named Weapon of Energy, but that doesn't work because it targets the weapon but damages something else.

Energy Missile (choose to target only one creature), Energy Push, Energy Ray

[Jormengand]

Also, before anyone says "But they have effects, not targets", I'd like to point out this line from energy ray:

"You create a ray of energy of the chosen type that shoots forth from your fingertip and strikes a target within range, dealing 1d6 points of damage, if you succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray"

And from energy push:

"You project a solid blast of energy of the chosen type at a target, dealing it 2d6 points of damage."

These powers clearly affect a single target, unless you want to go down the "Well actually because it can indirectly affect other people by making them sad that their friend was hurt, it's actually affecting multiple targets" route, in which case I'd like to introduce you to my friend sequester.

Chain power clearly isn't dysfunctional, or at least it doesn't have a problem with not having any valid powers to apply it to. It should be removed from the handbook, but the handbook hasn't been updated for ages, which is why I suggested restarting it.

[Debatra]

I'm curious when you changed your mind about Sequester though.

[PallentisLunam]

Also, before anyone says "But they have effects, not targets", I'd like to point out this line from energy ray:

"You create a ray of energy of the chosen type that shoots forth from your fingertip and strikes a target within range, dealing 1d6 points of damage, if you succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray"

And from energy push:

"You project a solid blast of energy of the chosen type at a target, dealing it 2d6 points of damage."

These powers clearly affect a single target, unless you want to go down the "Well actually because it can indirectly affect other people by making them sad that their friend was hurt, it's actually affecting multiple targets" route, in which case I'd like to introduce you to my friend sequester.

Chain power clearly isn't dysfunctional, or at least it doesn't have a problem with not having any valid powers to apply it to. It should be removed from the handbook, but the handbook hasn't been updated for ages, which is why I suggested restarting it.

Okay, but allowing that reading how would you prevent someone from Chaining an Area or Spread power as long as there is only one target within the AoE?

[ross]

Okay, but allowing that reading how would you prevent someone from Chaining an Area or Spread power as long as there is only one target within the AoE?

If they don't say "a target" or "up to x targets" then they're not valid

[PallentisLunam]

If they don't say "a target" or "up to x targets" then they're not valid

And where is that in the rules? All the feat says is "You can chain any power that affects a single target and that deals either acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage."

[ross]

And where is that in the rules? All the feat says is "You can chain any power that affects a single target and that deals either acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage."

Area powers don't affect targets, they affect areas. If a creature happens to be in the area, it's still not a target, because it wasn't targeted, because area powers don't have targets.

If powers were functions, then area powers would be functions that don't take targets as parameters, and this feat would only act on powers that take one target as a parameter (powers with "up to x targets" would be overloaded, and the feat would be valid for the version that takes one target)

[PallentisLunam]

Area powers don't affect targets, they affect areas. If a creature happens to be in the area, it's still not a target, because it wasn't targeted, because area powers don't have targets.

If powers were functions, then area powers would be functions that don't take targets as parameters, and this feat would only act on powers that take one target as a parameter (powers with "up to x targets" would be overloaded, and the feat would be valid for the version that takes one target)

Interesting. Now how do you square that logic with effects?

Effect powers don't affect targets, they produce effects. If a creature happens to be struck by the effect, it's still not a target, because it wasn't targeted, because effect powers don't have targets.

[ross]

Interesting. Now how do you square that logic with effects?

Effect powers don't affect targets, they produce effects. If a creature happens to be struck by the effect, it's still not a target, because it wasn't targeted, because effect powers don't have targets.

Sure, sounds fine. Are there any effect powers that state they affect targets?