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

[Venger]

I always assumed warforged got one slam because it was a two handed overhead smash kinda thing.

nah, it's one hand, thus the existence of the second slam feat.

[ZamielVanWeber]

nah, it's one hand, thus the existence of the second slam feat.

It's not dysfunctional, but Second Slam does not grant you a 2nd slam attack. Its grants you an iterative attack with your slam.

[PallentisLunam]

That is what I meant to say, just not in a very clear way it seems.

You remember that scene in Alice In Wonderland with the Mad Hatter where he explains that "I say what I mean" is not the same as "I mean what I say"? That's what is happening here.

"When using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures" does not equate to "you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon". In the former case the restriction is caused by the state of the weapon (possessing the double weapon property). In the latter case (which is incorrect) the restriction is caused by the location of the target (being adjacent). You can use the weapon in its reach form to attack adjacent targets because it is an inclusive reach weapon; therefore, it is not true that you can only attack adjacent targets by using the weapon as a double weapon.

That's not how English works. 'In this case' refers to the last situation that was talked about, and in RAW that situation is attacking adjacent targets, not using it as a reach weapon. Putting it before the sentence talking about adjacent targets makes it refer to not being usable as a double weapon with reach, and the distinction wasn't even necessary as the double weapon part already specified this. By RAW it both can and cannot be used as a double weapon to attack adjacent targets.

The last situation specifically refers to reach weapons and adjacent creatures. You can't remove the parts about reach weapons because that changes the nature of the text.

The RAW is that when it is being used as a double weapon either end can be used against adjacent foes and when being used as a reach weapon one end may be used against foes 10 ft away or adjacent but the other end cannot be used at all.

It is entirely within the rules of the English language to write the passage like this without changing the meaning at all:

Chain Lash:This is a simple chain with weighted ends. It can be whirled quickly, striking with hard blows because of the weights. One end can also be swung out to entangle an opponent. Kytons often wield these weapons in place of their chain rakes and apply their dancing chains ability to them.

---

The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon.

---

You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. (Whenever using the chain lash as a double weapon), you can only strike at an adjacent opponent.

---

If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. (Whenever using the chain lash as a reach weapon, even when only to attack adjacent targets), you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon (when using it as a reach weapon).

---

Because the chain lash can wrap around an enemy’s leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain lash to avoid being tripped.

---

When using a chain lash, you get a +2 bonus on your opposed attack roll when attempting to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if you fail
to disarm your opponent).

---

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a chain lash.

Above the first line is description and flavor text.

Above the second line is a rule that dictates that the weapon can have one of these two properties at any given time. Most English uses an inclusive 'or' (which also covers 'and' situations) so the weapon having both properties simultaneously is not ruled out at this time.

Above the third line are the rules for using the weapon as a double weapon which are the same as any other double weapon.

Above the fourth line are the rules for using the weapon as a reach weapon. This is the situation being discussed by "In this case" replaced above. The middle sentence begins with "In addition". In addition to what? The previous sentence. The middle sentence is simply clarifying that this reach weapon does not follow the standard rules for reach weapons. That does not force "In this case" to refer only to the most proximal sentence because the most proximal sentence refers to the one before it, i.e. the case being discussed (use of the weapon as a reach weapon). And it is here that the inclusive 'or' above the second line becomes an exclusive 'or' because we are told specifically that the weapon cannot be both a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time.

The rest of the lines are included for completeness's sake and to support the parsing out of all of the different rules text.

[zergling.exe]

"When using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures" does not equate to "you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon". In the former case the restriction is caused by the state of the weapon (possessing the double weapon property). In the latter case (which is incorrect) the restriction is caused by the location of the target (being adjacent). You can use the weapon in its reach form to attack adjacent targets because it is an inclusive reach weapon; therefore, it is not true that you can only attack adjacent targets by using the weapon as a double weapon.

How my brain parsed it is that the emphasis was on 'while using it as a double weapon' being the qualifier. Likewise, my brain parses 'In this case' to be referring to attacking adjacent creatures. Your brain parses it differently than mine, thus leading to reading it differently.

[PallentisLunam]

How my brain parsed it is that the emphasis was on 'while using it as a double weapon' being the qualifier. Likewise, my brain parses 'In this case' to be referring to attacking adjacent creatures. Your brain parses it differently than mine, thus leading to reading it differently.

Well then we are back to one way causes a dysfunction and the other doesn't. However I think we still have a dysfunction because we are never told what kind of action is required to change between uses of the weapon. It appears to be within the rules to hold it as a double weapon, attack, switch to a reach weapon, attack, and switch back to a double weapon to attack again, meaning the choice is only significant at BABs of 5 or lower.

[Darrin]

It's not dysfunctional, but Second Slam does not grant you a 2nd slam attack. Its grants you an iterative attack with your slam.

It does not. It grants you a second slam on any turn where you make a full attack that includes a slam. Attack bonus is BAB -5, but it makes no mention about getting a third slam at BAB +11 or fourth at BAB +16.

[Jormengand]

Well then we are back to one way causes a dysfunction and the other doesn't. However I think we still have a dysfunction because we are never told what kind of action is required to change between uses of the weapon. It appears to be within the rules to hold it as a double weapon, attack, switch to a reach weapon, attack, and switch back to a double weapon to attack again, meaning the choice is only significant at BABs of 5 or lower.

I like how this weapon is so dysfunctional that no-one can actually agree what the dysfunction is.

[The Viscount]

In this case I think we should just agree there's a problem with the lash and enter it as "it's a mess."

[LordOfCain]

A friend pointed this out to me and I don't think its been mentioned yet. Necropolitans don't lose the level or the xp until they open their eyes. What if your character doesn't have any eyes?

[ZamielVanWeber]

It does not. It grants you a second slam on any turn where you make a full attack that includes a slam. Attack bonus is BAB -5, but it makes no mention about getting a third slam at BAB +11 or fourth at BAB +16.

I like how you said I am wrong and then spelled out what I said in many more words. Please notice the use of the single "iterative" not the plural "iteratives." You get one attack that generally follows the rules for iteratives (BAB -5, full attack required, comes after a specific attack).

[Darrin]

I like how you said I am wrong and then spelled out what I said in many more words. Please notice the use of the single "iterative" not the plural "iteratives." You get one attack that generally follows the rules for iteratives (BAB -5, full attack required, comes after a specific attack).

I apologize. I misunderstood you. I didn't realize you were referring to it as a singular. "Iterative" might not be the best term to use, as it's not really a defined game term. I assumed you meant "multiple attacks as determined by your BAB."

There's a bit of a dysfunction with Second Slam because it doesn't specify if you get your full Str bonus (as a primary attack) or 1/2 Str bonus (as a secondary attack). My inclination was to say Second Slam gets the same Str bonus as whatever the first slam gets.

[Inevitability]

A friend pointed this out to me and I don't think its been mentioned yet. Necropolitans don't lose the level or the xp until they open their eyes. What if your character doesn't have any eyes?

Even better: just have your eyelids cut away at the end of the ritual (which surprisingly hardly worsens it). Without the very ability to ever open your eyes again (even Regenerate only works on the living), you'll be free of the level loss! And well, it's not like undead you needs to keep their eyes moisturized.

[nailbudday]

Whirlwind Attack lets you hit adjacent enemies with reach weapons, even if your reach weapon doesn't allow it.

[flare'90]

Whirlwind Attack lets you hit adjacent enemies with reach weapons, even if your reach weapon doesn't allow it.

Benefit

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Well that's a possible interpretation of the text.

[Jormengand]

Adjacent squares are not within the area you can reach; they are in one of the two regions outside of it.

[flare'90]

When you initiate this strike, you make
a melee attack against every opponent
adjacent to you. Resolve each attack
separately. You gain a +2 bonus on each
of these attacks, which are otherwise
made at your highest attack bonus.

On the other hand, Mithral Tornado does let you attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon.

[Inevitability]

On the other hand, Mithral Tornado does let you attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon.

If that's how we're reading it, I guess it should also be mentioned that a creature without natural reach (say, a jermlaine) suddenly can attack his opponents in this way.

[flare'90]

If that's how we're reading it, I guess it should also be mentioned that a creature without natural reach (say, a jermlaine) suddenly can attack his opponents in this way.

"When you initiate this strike, you make a melee attack against every opponent adjacent to you."

Tell me, how do you read it?
Yes, you can attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon. You can also attack adjacent opponents if you do not have reach at all.
You can't attack opponents in your square with it, unless you rule that your square is adjacent to itself.

Another one for the Handbook?

[Jormengand]

This is the same book which gave us nonmagical teleportation, so really I don't think that being able to attack creatures in a position you normally couldn't is that odd. Maybe executing Mithril Tornado with a glaive involves holding it in a position unsuitable for regular combat, for example.

[Inevitability]

This is the same book which gave us nonmagical teleportation...

Don't forget the part where they decided teleportation was apparently fine as a nonmagical power, but avoiding fire by tumbling out of the way had to be supernatural.

[Inevitability]

New one:

The Dinosaur Stampede spell can be used on a foe standing on the ground.
The Dinosaur Stampede spell can't be used on a foe flying 20 feet up in the air.
The Dinosaur Stampede spell can be used on a foe flying on a plane without ground.

Basically, due to the spell's wording it only makes attacking flying foes impossible if they're a certain distance 'above the ground'. Somewhere without ground wouldn't trigger this restriction.

[No brains]

Regarding reach, was it ever added to the handbook that there's a possible gray area regarding reach weapons and attacking adjacent creatures? If a large creature is adjacent to a medium creature wielding a reach weapon, the medium creature can attack into a non-adjacent square that the large creature occupies, potentially hitting it.

[Inevitability]

From the ghost template:

Malevolence (Su)
Once per round, an ethereal ghost can merge its body with a creature on the Material Plane. This ability is similar to a magic jar spell (caster level 10th or the ghost’s Hit Dice, whichever is higher), except that it does not require a receptacle. To use this ability, the ghost must be manifested and it must try move into the target’s space; moving into the target’s space to use the malevolence ability does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The target can resist the attack with a successful Will save (DC 15 + ghost’s Cha modifier). A creature that successfully saves is immune to that same ghost’s malevolence for 24 hours, and the ghost cannot enter the target’s space. If the save fails, the ghost vanishes into the target’s body.

So, does the ghost have to be manifested or ethereal? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Darrin]

So, does the ghost have to be manifested or ethereal? Your guess is as good as mine.

I believe it's both. A manifested ghost is still technically ethereal. It exists on both planes while it's manifesting.

[Venger]

I believe it's both. A manifested ghost is still technically ethereal. It exists on both planes while it's manifesting.

No, a manifested ghost is incorporeal, but not ethereal.

[Darrin]

No, a manifested ghost is incorporeal, but not ethereal.

Nope, still both. Ghosts are somewhat unique among the incorporeal creatures that are explicitly on the ethereal plane. And even when they manifest, they're still partially on the ethereal plane.

"A manifested ghost remains partially on the Ethereal Plane, where is it not incorporeal. A manifested ghost can be attacked by opponents on either the Material Plane or the Ethereal Plane."

So I don't believe there's a dysfunction here, just some poorly explained rules.

[Troacctid]

From Dragon #332, the size of the Aberrant Paragon class's hit die is apparently as mysterious and incomprehensible as the Far Realms themselves, because it's not given in the text. Is it a d8? Is it a d6? Is it a dπ? No one knows!

Either that or I'm failing a Spot check. I certainly couldn't find it, anyway.

[flare'90]

From Dragon #332, the size of the Aberrant Paragon class's hit die is apparently as mysterious and incomprehensible as the Far Realms themselves, because it's not given in the text. Is it a d8? Is it a d6? Is it a dπ? No one knows!

Either that or I'm failing a Spot check. I certainly couldn't find it, anyway.

It's not you, it seems they forgot entirely. To the Handbook!

[Inevitability]

In the category "let's take things overly literal"...

• Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gains negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armor. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class’s code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin’s code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would.

What happens if a hellbred paladin uses a +1 unholy longsword to slay an orc paladin?

[Troacctid]

In the category "let's take things overly literal"...



What happens if a hellbred paladin uses a +1 unholy longsword to slay an orc paladin?

Then she falls, because the ability doesn't shield you from breaking your Code of Conduct. Easy.

The real question is why you apparently are immune to all negative levels while holding an unholy sword, not just those bestowed by the sword itself.