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

[InvisibleBison]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like Ettin Skeleton, if affected by Awaken Undead, becomes worse at Search:
Search check can be made untrained;
Int non-ability gives Int bonus +0;
Ettin have +2 racial on Search checks;
Thus, total +2 bonus.

Awakened Ettin Skeleton got no more then 6 Int - thus, -2 Int penalty
-2+2=0
Thus, +0 bonus - which is worse than +2 for "regular" Ettin Skeleton

Untrained skill checks are a form of ability check, and mindless creatures automatically fail Intelligence checks. Thus, an ettin skeleton can't make Search checks.

[Unavenger]

Untrained skill checks are a form of ability check, and mindless creatures automatically fail Intelligence checks. Thus, an ettin skeleton can't make Search checks.

The closest thing I can find to justifying that reading is that an ability check is "Essentially[...] an untrained skill check", but I can't find the converse - that an untrained skill check is an ability check - anywhere. In fact, a character who "attempts to use a skill [they don't] possess [makes] a skill check as normal."

[InvisibleBison]

The closest thing I can find to justifying that reading is that an ability check is "Essentially[...] an untrained skill check", but I can't find the converse - that an untrained skill check is an ability check - anywhere. In fact, a character who "attempts to use a skill [they don't] possess [makes] a skill check as normal."

You're right, I over-extrapolated from the rules. I suppose this is a dysfunction after all.

[Celestia]

You're right, I over-extrapolated from the rules. I suppose this is a dysfunction after all.

It's not a dysfunction. The rules are working exactly as intended. It's just dumb.

[EliDupree]

I'm not sure it's even unrealistic. A sapient creature, who has to figure out for itself what to do (and isn't good at it), could easily perform worse than a mindless entity that follows orders literally.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread re-opened by request

[ShurikVch]

The first thing:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

Immunity: A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect.

Elves:

• Immunity to magic sleep effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.

So, can elves, actually, suppress their immunity to Sleep effects, or not?


The second one: you know like Rebuke Undead defined as "always Evil"? The funny thing: Smite Good is not!..

[tyckspoon]

The first thing:


Elves:

So, can elves, actually, suppress their immunity to Sleep effects, or not?

These aren't in conflict - the second entry just adds an additional qualifier. Yes, an Elf can suppress their immunity to Sleep ... unless being affected by the Sleep effect would be beneficial (yes, this is going to spawn all kinds of weird additional edge cases and rules arguments, but you wouldn't be looking at 3.5 rules unless you're into that.) The text itself is not irreconcilable.

The alternative would be to figure the specific example in the PHB text is probably wrong, which is also pretty consistent with other example text. If they meant specifically resistances and that this is a distinct rules term from immunity then there is also no conflict, the writer just didn't cross check their jargon file correctly.

[ShurikVch]

These aren't in conflict - the second entry just adds an additional qualifier. Yes, an Elf can suppress their immunity to Sleep ... unless being affected by the Sleep effect would be beneficial (yes, this is going to spawn all kinds of weird additional edge cases and rules arguments, but you wouldn't be looking at 3.5 rules unless you're into that.) The text itself is not irreconcilable.

Unfortunately, MMIII says "never harmed (or helped)" - thus, even harmful effects shouldn't work (effects which are neither harmful nor helpful are still in question)

The alternative would be to figure the specific example in the PHB text is probably wrong, which is also pretty consistent with other example text. If they meant specifically resistances and that this is a distinct rules term from immunity then there is also no conflict, the writer just didn't cross check their jargon file correctly.

I severely tempted to just axe the PHB example: consequences of its implementation are too weird in-world
Say, you dominated a Fire Elemental, and command it to drop its immunities.
So, does it mean it can be Sneak Attacked now? How is it - considering the complete lack of internal anatomy?
And can it be poisoned too? Even assuming the poison wouldn't be destroyed by the heat - on what, exactly, it will work? And how will it spread through the body?
Or, considering the loss of immunity to fire - would it just burn itself to "death"?

[Debatra]

It's a little less weird than that since it specifies being able to suppress resistances "to magic". Still a bit weird though.

[ShurikVch]

It's a little less weird than that since it specifies being able to suppress resistances "to magic". Still a bit weird though.

And what if the Fire Elemental in question is, actually, a Breath Weapon under the Animate Breath spell? It's magic affected by another magic. Would it burn itself?

Some of poisons are magical too. (Also, spells such as Poison, and Poison Spell metamagic...)

[sreservoir]

MM3 contradicting PH is just the roughly the same tier of dysfunction as RC stealth errata, I think; the wrinkle here is just that the PH rule itself is probably ill-advised.

Speaking of which, the RC version of that rule just deletes the "special resistance" line, so there's that.

(This is also one of the places where the SRD example removal potentially screws up interpretation, though in this case the original example is straight up wrong.)

[ShurikVch]

Create Frenzy Dog spell can be cast on Porpoise
Except:

Speed: Increase the animal's speed to 50 ft.; it loses all other forms of movement besides land speed.

Speed: Swim 80 ft. (16 squares)

[tyckspoon]

Create Frenzy Dog spell can be cast on Porpoise

Well you would hardly cast it on accident, would you?

Failed save vs. Pun

[ShurikVch]

Well you would hardly cast it on accident, would you?

Failed save vs. Pun

Spell-infused food which fall into water?

[Andezzar]

Spell-infused food which fall into water?

So now the porpoise has no swim speed but can move at 50ft/4 as a move action with a successful swim check. Maybe not the desired effect,but hardly unplayable.

[ShurikVch]

So now the porpoise has no swim speed but can move at 50ft/4 as a move action with a successful swim check. Maybe not the desired effect,but hardly unplayable.

Not every dysfunction is unplayable:
Say, Curse of Pain Eternal have duration 10 minutes/level
Is it playable? Yes, it is.
But isn't "10 minutes/level" awfully short for something which called "Eternal"?

[Andezzar]

Not every dysfunction is unplayable:
Say, Curse of Pain Eternal have duration 10 minutes/level
Is it playable? Yes, it is.
But isn't "10 minutes/level" awfully short for something which called "Eternal"?

Finger of death does not always cause death, disintegrate does not always cause disintegration. A fireball is not a ball (it is a bunch of cubes), and whether it is fire is debatable as there is no way to keep a creature burning after the spell was cast and worn equipment is not affected by it. The name does not create the function or invalidate it.

BTW how do you infuse food with that spell?

I am still not seeing the issue with casting frenzy dog on a porpoise. The porpoise gets turned into a canine and no longer has a swim speed, dogs don't have one either. 50ft land speed is a bit fast, but it's magic. So no problem there either.

[mattie_p]

Craft Wondrous Item: Elixir of Frenzy Dog?

** Can't be a potion due to spell level, but use activated consumable wondrous items use same creation costs as potions.

[Vaern]

I am still not seeing the issue with casting frenzy dog on a porpoise. The porpoise gets turned into a canine and no longer has a swim speed, dogs don't have one either. 50ft land speed is a bit fast, but it's magic. So no problem there either.

The main perceived issue is that the creature's land speed is increased to 50 feet, but a porpoise has no land speed to increase. I'd assume that a creature with no listed land speed should be considered to have a speed of 0 rather than -, but I have yet to find anything RAW to support that assumption.

[Andezzar]

The main perceived issue is that the creature's land speed is increased to 50 feet, but a porpoise has no land speed to increase. I'd assume that a creature with no listed land speed should be considered to have a speed of 0 rather than -, but I have yet to find anything RAW to support that assumption.

Ah, I missed that. A strict reading does mean that a frenzy dog created from a creature without land speed would not be able to move.

3.0 Templates usually are worded pretty badly.

[Gruftzwerg]

The first thing:


Elves:

So, can elves, actually, suppress their immunity to Sleep effects, or not?

Thx god that the designers left us a rule to solve this situation.

Or maybe not... ^^ :

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

3.5 wouldn't be 3.5, if the oddities would stop at some point. So here we go :

It seems in regards to "Immunities", we seem to really have a split ruling. Since depending on the source (book) of the Immunity, either the PHB (for PC/NPCs) or the MM (for Monsters) will be take precedence.

Having a headache already? But wait.. there is more... :

The real oddity is, that Immunities from Spells (PHB) and Monster SLAs (MM) that resemble the same spells are thus ruled different.

Poor monsters...

[ShurikVch]

3.5 wouldn't be 3.5, if the oddities would stop at some point. So here we go :

It seems in regards to "Immunities", we seem to really have a split ruling. Since depending on the source (book) of the Immunity, either the PHB (for PC/NPCs) or the MM (for Monsters) will be take precedence.

But, unfortunately, Elves are in both Player's Handbook and Monster Manual
"We are all in the monster manual somewhere, my entry is between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher"

Having a headache already? But wait.. there is more... :

The real oddity is, that Immunities from Spells (PHB) and Monster SLAs (MM) that resemble the same spells are thus ruled different.

Poor monsters...

Actually, it's even weirder than that: some monsters are able to cast spells too! (Or use magical items with spell effects)

[Beni-Kujaku]

But, unfortunately, Elves are in both Player's Handbook and Monster Manual
"We are all in the monster manual somewhere, my entry is between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher"


Actually, it's even weirder than that: some monsters are able to cast spells too! (Or use magical items with spell effects)

Yes, and that's what is fascinating with this reading: there is a mechanical difference between a PC and a monster, in that a PC can suppress their immunities. That asks a lot of question lore-wise, notably about how governments would react to people that can demonstrably do things normal people can't, and have 4th wall knowledge, but I find it really neat that there is this kind of subtle distinction.

[Gruftzwerg]

But, unfortunately, Elves are in both Player's Handbook and Monster Manual
"We are all in the monster manual somewhere, my entry is between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher"


Actually, it's even weirder than that: some monsters are able to cast spells too! (Or use magical items with spell effects)

A MM Elf is still the same race as it is available for PCs. As such it still qualifies for:

The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races,

"PC Races" include NPCs based on those PC Races too.
As such, I would rule all PC Races with the PHB ruling and only those races/monsters that are not directly available for PCs (without optional LA/RHD rules from MM) with the MM version. All available races that come from "player focused books" (PHB, Complete...) should be seen as "player races" imho, even if reprinted in any MM.

edit: personally, for actual play at the table IMHO I would still prefer a more logical approach here, depending on the origin of the immunity.
e.g. IIRC An Elf Immunity against sleep is not due to their physical inability, its due to their adaptation to meditation instead of sleeping. As such, it is something the Elf has control over. On the contrary, a Elemental would have a hard time to fall asleep since it lacks the ability to sleep in the first place. While both races have immunity to sleep, I can see why they should be ruled different (dunno if all other chases also give such a nice example..).

[Harrow]

Not sure if this is an actual dysfunction, or my lack of understanding, but the spells Favorable Wind from Stromwrack and Wind's Favor from Magic of Eberron are both clearly intended to be used to generate wind to propel sailing ships for hours at a time. But, the way I read it, they're area spells, and AFAIK area spells don't move with the caster, so they should just push the ship until it's out of the range of the original casting, then the boat sits there not moving with the wind hangs in the air where it was cast with nothing to push on for the remainder of the duration.

Really, casting area spells on moving ships in general seems like a headache to me. If you cast the aforementioned spells or something like Black Tentacles, it seems like they should move with the ship. But what about something like Vortex of Teeth from Spell Compendium? What about the various fog and mist spells? Forcecage? What about when these spells have a large enough area that they're partially on the boat and partially on the water? I don't know of and can't think of any general rule that would make sense for all these cases.

[Gruftzwerg]

Not sure if this is an actual dysfunction, or my lack of understanding, but the spells Favorable Wind from Stromwrack and Wind's Favor from Magic of Eberron are both clearly intended to be used to generate wind to propel sailing ships for hours at a time. But, the way I read it, they're area spells, and AFAIK area spells don't move with the caster, so they should just push the ship until it's out of the range of the original casting, then the boat sits there not moving with the wind hangs in the air where it was cast with nothing to push on for the remainder of the duration.

Really, casting area spells on moving ships in general seems like a headache to me. If you cast the aforementioned spells or something like Black Tentacles, it seems like they should move with the ship. But what about something like Vortex of Teeth from Spell Compendium? What about the various fog and mist spells? Forcecage? What about when these spells have a large enough area that they're partially on the boat and partially on the water? I don't know of and can't think of any general rule that would make sense for all these cases.

Favorable Wind is anchored to you:

It begins where you stand and blows directly away from you;

It trumps the general rules for area spells by creating a specific exception for itself.

Black Tentacles are conjured. Thus, once they are there (on the ship), they move with the ship.

Other spells that don't have these kind of special exceptions are indeed problematic on a ship. Imho a ship is technically just like a giant mount in this chase. As such, it can move you out of spell areas (if they are only attached to the grid).

[Andezzar]

Favorable Wind works like this, if the caster points it at the sail.

The behavior of Wind's Favor depends on the system of reference. If the caster designates the area to be on the ship it works like Favorable Wind, if he designates an area in the world,the ship moves out of the area eventually.

[Voldine]

How exactly would one unintentionally cast a spell or use an SLA?

Use Magic/Psionic Device: Activate Blindly. Item contains a spell/power with the [Evil] descriptor. Yes, the user intended to activate the item, but they had no idea what the item could do or that the contained spell/power was [Evil]. Unintentional casting of an evil spell.

Just because you people consider rogues a suboptimal and therefore 'useless' class doesn't mean that you should forget one of their signature trained-only class skills.

[Voldine]

{scrubbed}

If one has won three contested rolls, one must have won two rolls. Winning two rolls is therefore to be read as a valid win condition because it is the specific number being requested.

If one wins all three contested rolls, {scrubbed}, one MUST have first won two rolls and triggered the win condition in order to have a total of three victories in the contest.

Two wins is the required value. Three wins is one more than you needed, and therefore is also a valid result because to get to three you must have first obtained two. One does not leap over two to get to three. It is a sequence of events that requires all rolls be made, therefore if a winner is determined on roll #2 the third roll is still made but has zero significance or impact on the outcome of the contest as the victory condition has already been triggered for one of the two sides.

This is the ONLY logical conclusion. {scrubbed}