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

[ShurikVch]

Are there any other classes with weird saves or BAB or something like that which we know were on purpose?

I'm willing to call it an editing mistake if not. Seems weird to break the standard save-progression rules and not note it was on purpose.

I dunno how much "on purpose" they were, but PrCs from The Mind's Eye are highly prone to it:
Constructor and Crystal Master: bad Fort and Ref saves got +1 at 8th level instead the usual 9th (+3 bonus, not normal +2)
The same thing with the Psychic Weapon Master, except the bad saves are Fort and Will
Same for the Ruby Disciple, except Ref save only

Meditant: BAB 3/4 miss progression at 4th level (instead the usual 5th)
Shadow Mind: BAB 3/4 miss progression at 10th level (instead the usual 9th); bad Fort and Ref saves got +1 at 8th level (instead the usual 9th)
Sangehirn: BAB 3/4 miss progression at 4th level (instead the usual 5th); good Fort save, for some reason, got delayed progression at 8th level (+5 instead +6)
The Body Leech: have BAB progression 1/2 (as Commoner), but at 5th level suddenly get +3 (instead expected +2)

[The Viscount]

Shadow Mind's BA problem is actually that it has poor BA and advances at 9 instead of at 10. Good eye catching all of these.

[ross]

Text trumps table, and this is also reitterated in the ToB Errata non-Errata.

Table trumps text, errata is irrelevant

[ross]

But, as written, it makes them deal damage as a 5th level monk. They only have one class level of monk, which is what the feat checks.

As written, it makes the deal damage as a Monk 4 levels higher than their current character level, which is 20

[Debatra]

Table trumps text, errata is irrelevant

Neither of the things you've just said are true.

[georgie_leech]

Mm. I'm all for finding dysfunctions with RAW, but let's at least follow RAW, yeah? Otherwise we could just rename the 3.5 forums "Dysfunctional topics" and call it a day.

[flare'90]

Table trumps text, errata is irrelevant

When the text within a product
contradicts itself, our general policy is
that the primary source (actual rules
text) is correct and any secondary
reference (such as a table or
character's statistics block) is
incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be
called out specifically.

gg no re.
Warning: you tablecloth may trump any errata hidden below it.

[nailbudday]

Another SUS one:

I have a Sorc 6/Monk of the Long Death 10 -character level 16- with SUS. Is my Unarmed Strike damage d10 or 2d6?

[Hellpyre]

As written, it makes the deal damage as a Monk 4 levels higher than their current character level, which is 20

No, as written, they deal damage as a Monk four levels higher. They are a first-level Monk, and so it causes them to deal damage as a fifth-level Monk. When a source refers to class levels as a basis for a further reference to level a dependant clause, they both refer to levels of that class.

[The Viscount]

In attempting to research whether there was any guiding general rule or philosophy for what templates change skills and what don't (I haven't found any, please let me know of any if you know of one) I found the following very strange passage in the "improving monsters" section of the srd.

Some templates change how skill points are determined, but this change usually only affects skill points gained after the template is applied.

I cannot think of a single template for which this is true. It doesn't seem to be referring to changes to skill points based on intelligence, because there are already rules covering that. There are templates such as half-dragon which change your skill points, but it makes clear that it applies this to racial hit dice, so would apply retroactively. Is there something I'm missing?

Also, primordial giant is a (to my knowledge) unique template in that it has you recalculate skill points solely because of an increase in intelligence. I'm not sure if this is even in contradiction to normal rules about how templates work, or if it's just doing something that most templates don't. There do exist other templates that increase int, and they do not instruct you to recalculate int like this. I'm sure even if there is a general rule we can just say specific trumps general.

[ShurikVch]

I cannot think of a single template for which this is true. It doesn't seem to be referring to changes to skill points based on intelligence, because there are already rules covering that. There are templates such as half-dragon which change your skill points, but it makes clear that it applies this to racial hit dice, so would apply retroactively. Is there something I'm missing?

You're missing certain ways to get more racial HD, which are may be affected by the template in sense of skill points per HD
And the possible Type change: Certain types - such as Outsider - are getting much more skill points than others
Also, racial variants from the Dragon #306 - such as Magic-Blooded (Spark) - are commonly referred as "templates"; Wild racial variant gives +1 skill point/level (but -2 Int, so net gain is 0; and doesn't stacks with Human)


Speaking about the templates: in 3.5 update for Monster Manual II, Titanic template always gives 28 skill points; but if base creature was a Vermin without any skills, then which are the "class skills" for it? Are they all cross-class?

[The Viscount]

Mounted Casting is a feat that was probably intended to help overcome the DCs for vigorous or violent motion from a mount's movement. However, they wrote it so it applies to all concentration checks made to cast spells when mounted, so you can sit on a still mount and become better at casting defensively.

[nailbudday]

The Scorpion Heritor, at level 5, gains the ability to apply a poisonous saliva to a weapon 3 times a day as a free action. Unfortunately, they don't actually get a poison attack, and they don't have poison use as a clss skill, so they run the risk of poisoning themselves when they use this ability. It gets even stranger when you consider the fact that they specifically call out that you can apply it to a bite attack.

[Jormengand]

The Scorpion Heritor, at level 5, gains the ability to apply a poisonous saliva to a weapon 3 times a day as a free action. Unfortunately, they don't actually get a poison attack, and they don't have poison use as a clss skill, so they run the risk of poisoning themselves when they use this ability. It gets even stranger when you consider the fact that they specifically call out that you can apply it to a bite attack.

While checking the rules surrouding accidentally exposing oneself to an injury poison (IIRC merely exposing oneself to an injury poison does nothing but I can't find anything explicating this) I noticed something slightly odd: assassins can accidentally poison themselves while using a poisoned weapon, just not when applying the poison in the first place. Weirdly, this is also oddly close to a critical failure mechanic.

[ShurikVch]

You know like in 3.5 Energy Substitution [metamagic] feat changes spell's descriptor, but not damage type (because it doesn't say so)?
So, today I found this: Energy Affinity [metamagic] (Miniatures Handbook) changes damage type... but not descriptor!
Thus, maybe, it was completely intended (rather than a pesky blunder, as most of us previously presumed)?

[The Viscount]

Righteous Might has some utterly confusing text about changing size, specifically the following:

Your size modifier for AC and attacks changes as appropriate to your new size category (if your original size was Diminutive, Tiny, Small, Medium, or Large, the modifier decreases by 1; otherwise see Size Modifier, page 134).

If I'm reading this correctly, the authors of this text were trying to make an easy rule of thumb without having to consult the chart. However, they forgot that there's a separate modifier for hide and grapple, which is likely going to come up since characters might use their newfound size and strength to grapple monsters. A bigger problem is that the shift from diminutive to tiny is +4 to +2, so they didn't apply their help correctly. I'm not even sure why you would include Diminutive on the list considering the limited options a player has this early. Maybe for familiars?

This also opened up the worrying fact that all small races include in their description the +4 bonus to hide, but none include the -4 penalty to grapple. Not necessarily dysfunctional, but still odd since they bothered to include the less important carrying capacity.

I know there's errata for this spell, but it doesn't touch this passage or the text following so I assume it's left preserved. However, I did find perhaps the first example of nonfunctional errata. In the errata for PHB, they say to change shapechange's spell text to change it from 2xcaster level HD, max 50 to caster level HD, max 25. Problem is, the text already said the latter. Was shapechange even more powerful in an earlier draft?

[nailbudday]

This one is to do with the epic level rules. The rules for advancing a prestige class past epic level state that you can't advance a prestige with less than 10 levels levels past wherever it normally stops, but a "ten-level prestige class" can be advanced according to it's table. Where does this leave Void Disciple and Moonspeaker, who have 13 and 12 levels respectively?
This might be cleared up by 'if you have BAB 7 you also have BAB 3' type logic, which i would support if the language was different. The use of "ten-level prestige" and not 'prestige with ten levels' seems to imply that it's exclusive in the same way that 'a 10-ft pole' is not the same as 'a pole that is 10 feet' but that might just be me.



In a much clearer case, the Hellreaver gains the ability to steal spell-like abilities, which contains this line

If you have a similar ability, such as the spellthief's steal spell-like ability, you can steal two spell-like abilities at once, but each is subject to its respective spell level restriction.

Note that it doesn't say, 'you may use both abilities', it just says that you can steal two things, which RAW just gives you a free stolen ability when you use the hellreaver ability regardless of if you use the spellthief ability. You can also use both abilities for 3 stolen spell-likes.

[The Viscount]

In a much clearer case, the Hellreaver gains the ability to steal spell-like abilities, which contains this line


Note that it doesn't say, 'you may use both abilities', it just says that you can steal two things, which RAW just gives you a free stolen ability when you use the hellreaver ability regardless of if you use the spellthief ability. You can also use both abilities for 3 stolen spell-likes.

The fact that it says "each is subject to its respective spell level restriction" makes it hard to argue that it's a free SLA.

EDIT: Here's a fun one. The yellow dragon is both drawn and described as having no wings and flying magically. However, as a true dragon it uses the same rules as all other true dragons. This includes getting 2 wing attacks for anything large enough size.

[Inevitability]

Bog Imps (Heroes of Horror, page 142) cause all nonmagical liquids that come within 60 feet of them to stagnate, which amongst other things makes them nauseate whoever drinks them. Bog imps, being fey, still need to drink, and have no immunity to being nauseated.

[Nifft]

Bog Imps (Heroes of Horror, page 142) cause all nonmagical liquids that come within 60 feet of them to stagnate, which amongst other things makes them nauseate whoever drinks them. Bog imps, being fey, still need to drink, and have no immunity to being nauseated.

Well no wonder they hate everyone.

[nailbudday]

The Spell Sovereign from Dragon Mag #357 get a Living Spell familiar, which advances like a normal familiar does but is otherwise the same as any other Living Spell. The familiar gets DR 10/magic when the Sovereign is caster level 16, which it always has regardless of the player's caster level because all living spells have DR 10/magic.

[Dimers]

In the Spell Compendium, iron bones "functions like stone bones, except that the subject ... gains a +6 natural armor bonus to AC." But stone bones gives an enhancement bonus (+3) to natural armor. The "functions like" is unclear: does it "function like" stone bones in that it will usually improve AC, or in that it grants +3 enhancement in addition to +6 base?

[The Random NPC]

In the Spell Compendium, iron bones "functions like stone bones, except that the subject ... gains a +6 natural armor bonus to AC." But stone bones gives an enhancement bonus (+3) to natural armor. The "functions like" is unclear: does it "function like" stone bones in that it will usually improve AC, or in that it grants +3 enhancement in addition to +6 base?

I assume the intent is that it grants a +6 enhancement bonus to natural armor. Either that, or that it functions like Stone Bones like Melf's Acid Arrow functions like Acid Splash. In that the spells are similar but different.

[The Viscount]

I went on a book diving adventure and discovered a network of problems with summon baatezu.

The mighty pit fiend can use its summon ability to add more devils to the encounter. What can they include?

Twice per day a pit fiend can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, or ice devil. This ability is the equivalent of an 8th-level spell.

The weaker horned devil can summon 2d10 lemures, so this is clearly not what it should be. I'd say this is more than a typo because it should say "2d10 lemures, 2 bone devils[...]" so is a full screw up. It's exactly the sort of thing that gets fixed in errata, but in this case was not.

In the interest of seeing what it should be, I referred to Bel's entry in FCII, since Bel is a modified pit fiend. He has a slightly different summon description.

Two times per day, Bel can automatically summon three lemures, osyluths, or barbazu, or two erinyes, cornugons, or gelugons.

The numbers have all increased by one, but the important thing is that in using the alternate names for these devils, they had to look at the lemure, remember or check that that's its only name, and somehow ignore that it's a much weaker monster.

FCII reminded me that there are two other strong devils to refer to: The Paeliryon and Xerfilstyx. Perhaps they could provide a way out.

Once per day, a paeliryon can automatically summon 4 lemures, 4 osyluths, 4 barbazu, 2 erinyes, 2 cornugons, or 2 gelugons (paeliryon’s choice).
Twice per day a xerfilstyx can automatically summon 4 lemures, 4 osyluths, 4 kytons, 4 hellcats, 2 erinyes, 2 gelugons, or 2 pit fiends (xerfilstyx’s choice).

Alas, they fall prey to an even more egregious error, since each devil has an individual number. The updated xerfilstyx isn't any fun and just summons another xerfilstyx. Paeliryon's is modified to reduce the number of other devils summoned, but retains the 4 lemures. They almost seem to remember that lemures are weaker, but not that a devil 2CR below the Paeliryon can summon 2d10 of them.

I referenced the other Lords of the Nine, but they all avoid lemures completely, so don't have this problem. Asmodeus does have a different problem, though.

Three times per day, Asmodeus can automatically summon one pit fiend or two of any other kind of devil (including the aspects of other archdevils).

I'm trying to read this any other way, but as I see it Asmodeus can either summon one pit fiend of CR 20, or two aspects, each of which (except for Fierna) are CR 20 or greater. Especially strange since Bel is a modified Pit Fiend.

FCII's problems don't stop there.
The new Assassin Devil, according to its writeup, lacks the ability to summon other devils.
The statblock still says "summon baatezu" is one of its special attacks, though without description.

Malebranche is reprinted here, but its regeneration is not fully described. I suppose you just default to the update as in MM2?

The Amnizu is updated and also found here. It bizarrely also makes mention of summon baatezu in its statblock, but has no description that follows. The Amnizu in MM2 does have a description of 1d3 advespas or 1 amnizu with a 50% chance of success. My only thought is that it was lost in the update because advespas were not updated for FCII, and then they forgot to go back and put something else in. Perhaps some lemures?

[Venger]

When a fleshraker charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including one rake attack

This is not actually true. You must grapple before you can use rake, even if you have pounce. The fleshraker's leaping pounce lets it pin an opponent with a single grapple check.

When pinning an opponent, you cannot attack with a weapon. In following rounds it can grapple to deal claw and rake damage as if it had a sort of improved grab and constrict effect, so the rake ability does something in other rounds.

This isn't how rake normally works, but it's a unique ability so isn't technically illegal, though it does seem like an attempt to fix the rake. However, the rake itself has problems.

While there is no given formula for the attack bonus for rake, it's generally made at (BA+str+sizemod). The +2 bonus here means that some sort of penalty is being applied.

Due to the author's mixup with rake, it's possible they forgot that a rake doesn't take a -4 penalty for being used in a grapple. There isn't a set formula for damage either (its generally half Str as a secondary attack), but there's no way to get a +2 to damage with a +3 strength modifier.

[Celestia]

This is not actually true. You must grapple before you can use rake, even if you have pounce. The fleshraker's leaping pounce lets it pin an opponent with a single grapple check.

When pinning an opponent, you cannot attack with a weapon. In following rounds it can grapple to deal claw and rake damage as if it had a sort of improved grab and constrict effect, so the rake ability does something in other rounds.

This isn't how rake normally works, but it's a unique ability so isn't technically illegal, though it does seem like an attempt to fix the rake. However, the rake itself has problems.

While there is no given formula for the attack bonus for rake, it's generally made at (BA+str+sizemod). The +2 bonus here means that some sort of penalty is being applied.

Due to the author's mixup with rake, it's possible they forgot that a rake doesn't take a -4 penalty for being used in a grapple. There isn't a set formula for damage either (its generally half Str as a secondary attack), but there's no way to get a +2 to damage with a +3 strength modifier.

Lions and tigers can also rake while pouncing. In fact, it seems to be standard practice that any creature with both can do so.

[Venger]

Lions and tigers can also rake while pouncing. In fact, it seems to be standard practice that any creature with both can do so.

No they can't. You need to begin the round grappling to use your rakes. You can't use rake in the round you start the grapple.

[Celestia]

No they can't. You need to begin the round grappling to use your rakes. You can't use rake in the round you start the grapple.

"Pounce (Ex)
If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks."

"Pounce (Ex)
If a tiger charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks."

[Venger]

"Pounce (Ex)
If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks."

"Pounce (Ex)
If a tiger charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks."

Well, you've got me there. Specific trumps general and all.

Once more, there's just no standardization for anything involving rake.

[Celestia]

Well, you've got me there. Specific trumps general and all.

Once more, there's just no standardization for anything involving rake.

There's no standardization involving anything.