Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules

[Beni-Kujaku]

The whole metamagic on an SLA thing comes under the jurisdiction of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" from the SRD. A few monsters even use Augment Summoning on summon SLAs and School Focus to increase SLAs' CL. Maybe strict RAW reading would disagree, but the RAI seems clear to me, clear enough that I wouldn't call it a dysfunction.

[loky1109]

The whole metamagic on an SLA thing comes under the jurisdiction of "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" from the SRD. A few monsters even use Augment Summoning on summon SLAs and School Focus to increase SLAs' CL. Maybe strict RAW reading would disagree, but the RAI seems clear to me, clear enough that I wouldn't call it a dysfunction.

Well, it IS dysfunction, but it's not specific monster's/class's dysfunction, but whole SLA and feats-for-spells rules' dysfunction.

[ShurikVch]

I assume everybody knows the kerfluffle with warlocks and metamagics, but to recap: The text of all metamagic feats explicitly require casting spells, but there's a paragraph in the start of the chapter saying "Obviously, since the sudden metamagic feats don't modify spell slots, warlocks can benefit from them." meanwhile the benefit is "you can cast a spell better."

Acrually, WotC themselves used "cast as a spell-like ability" phrase:

Innate Spell [General]
You have mastered a spell so thoroughly you can now cast it as a spell-like ability.
Prerequisites: Quicken Spell, Silent Spell, Still Spell.
Benefit: Choose a spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round, without needing to prepare it. One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it. If the innate spell has an XP component, you pay the XP cost each time you use the spell-like ability. If the innate spell has a focus, you must have the focus to use the spell-like ability. If the innate spell has a costly material component (see the spell description) you use an item worth 50 times that cost to use as a focus for the spell-like ability.
Since an innate spell is a spell-like ability and not an actual spell, a cleric cannot convert it to a cure or an inflict spell. Divine spellcasters who become unable to cast divine spells cannot use divine innate spells.

See: they told "cast ... as a spell-like ability" - despite, in the very next paragraph, admitted SLA aren't spells

Also, Chimeric Champion of Garl Glittergold PrC:

Finally, at 9th level, the chimeric champions knowledge of illusion magic reaches its peak. She chooses an additional 2nd-level arcane illusion spell to cast as a spell-like ability, and she also chooses one 3rd-level arcane illusion spell to cast as a spell-like ability. Each of these new abilities can be used once per day.

One paragraph before that note is the one about weaponlike spells feats. I posted in a different thread about the issues with weapon focus and weaponlike spells. the short version is that paragraph makes equally little sense, or even less, as it might manage to randomly break how sorcerers and wizards work.

In addition:
Weapon Focus (ray),
Weapon Focus (energy missile),
Weapon Focus (eldritch blast),
and Weapon Focus (Grapple)...

[Inevitability]

Acrually, WotC themselves used "cast as a spell-like ability" phrase

The hexblade dead levels class feature does it too, for something a bit later in 3.5's lifecycle.

Forced Omens (Ex): At 6th level, a foreboding sense of doom travels with the hexblade, as candle lights flicker, fresh food turns green, or the air becomes stale. A hexblade adds prestidigitation to their list of spells known. If a hexblade already knows this spell, the character may choose a different 1st level spell. As a bonus spell, prestidigitation cannot be traded for another 1st level spell.

At 8th level, a hexblade may cast prestidigitation as if augmented by the Silent Spell feat without using up a higher-level spell slot. At 11th level, a hexblade may cast prestidigitation as a spell-like ability, lacking both somatic and verbal components, but is still limited to their spell slots per day. At 14th level, a hexblade may cast prestidigitation a number of additional times per day equal to 3 + their Charisma modifier. At 18th level, a hexblade can cast prestidigitation at will. The prestidigitation spell disappears from their list of spells known at this level.

[bekeleven]

Not to belabor the point but, if warlock invocations counted as casting spells, warlocks would become a much better class overnight due to qualifying for 5x as many prestige classes.

(What I'm trying to say is, let me know if they do, I would like to take some of those classes)

[Inevitability]

Shadows from the Last War, the Undead Eyes spell.

This spell allows the user to form a telepathic link with a mindless undead creature that the caster has first cast control undead upon. The telepathic link provides two benefits. First, the caster can issue telepathic commands to the target (with the normal restrictions for control undead). Second the caster can form a sense-link to the target as a free action. This link allows the caster to see and hear through the senses of the undead creature.

The issue? Undead Eyes is a 2nd-level cleric and sorcerer/wizard spell. Control Undead is sorc/wiz only and 7th-level...

Also, Undead Eyes lasts for days/level while Control Undead is over in minutes, but that's more of an ambiguity than a true dysfunction.

[Tohron]

Well, it is plausible that someone who can cast a powerful spell might develop weaker spells to situationally supplement it, though that still doesn't explain Undead Eyes being available to clerics.

[ShurikVch]

though that still doesn't explain Undead Eyes being available to clerics

Undeath domain?

[Chronos]

My guess is that it was supposed to work on any undead that the caster already had control of, also including ones they'd commanded via Rebuke Undead and those they controlled by virtue of having created them. That'd give it a use case for clerics, and would also make the long duration relevant.

[InvisibleBison]

My guess is that it was supposed to work on any undead that the caster already had control of, also including ones they'd commanded via Rebuke Undead and those they controlled by virtue of having created them. That'd give it a use case for clerics, and would also make the long duration relevant.

I'm almost certain that the author of undead eyes confused control undead with command undead, which is a 2nd level spell.

[St Fan]

My guess is that it was supposed to work on any undead that the caster already had control of, also including ones they'd commanded via Rebuke Undead and those they controlled by virtue of having created them. That'd give it a use case for clerics, and would also make the long duration relevant.

I would agree with this reading, since it's the most functional ruling.

I'm almost certain that the author of undead eyes confused control undead with command undead, which is a 2nd level spell.

Very likely, although command undead is still not a Cleric spell.

[Inevitability]

From the PHB II readthrough thread:

Luminous Assassin says:

After its initial attack, a Luminous Assassin attacks its target every round, taking its turn after your turn is completed.

And yet for some reason, the luminous assassin statblocks come with Improved Initiative...

[ShurikVch]

Tarrasque:

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

But...

Sphere of Annihilation:

Any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character.

Tarrasque is not a deity...

[glass]

Tarrasque:

But...

Sphere of Annihilation:

Tarrasque is not a deity...

"Cannot kill the Tarrasque" is more specific than "can kill anything" so this is pretty clear case of "specific beats general", so it is pretty clear the sphere cannot kill the tarrasque. Is that a problem?

EDIT: Oh, I think I get it. If it doesn't kill it, there is no obvious way to determine what it does instead. "Nothing" does not seem like an particularly satisfying answer.

[Inevitability]

Most creatures die when they are 'sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed'. The tarrasque simply doesn't. The void is full of destroyed tarrasques who are somehow, in some metaphysical way, still alive.


It's no different from how a disintegrate spell that reduces a creature to 0 but not -10 HP doesn't kill it, but does reduce it to a mere trace of dust - which kills most creatures very shortly thereafter for lack of air/food/water/etc.

[Pezzo]

It's no different from how a disintegrate spell that reduces a creature to 0 but not -10 HP doesn't kill it, but does reduce it to a mere trace of dust - which kills most creatures very shortly thereafter for lack of air/food/water/etc.

If it doesn't kill it, then the creature is still alive at 0 hp, still wearing it's gear, which was unaffected. Healing the creature should make the pile of dust a fully functional creature.

[ShurikVch]

One more dysfunction (I don't sure if it was mentioned earlier): [vile] feats Deformity (Gaunt) and Deformity (Obese) - nothing in the prerequisites prevent skeletal creature (Undead or Construct) from taking one of those

"Cannot kill the Tarrasque" is more specific than "can kill anything" so this is pretty clear case of "specific beats general", so it is pretty clear the sphere cannot kill the tarrasque. Is that a problem?

The problem there is: the "... can be slain only by ..." line is blatantly false (for example, Regeneration can't save from lack of air - and Tarrasque's Regeneration is no different there), and enforcing regardless would make it even more silly than it already is
In the case of Sphere of Annihilation - I think it just destroys so completely there is nothing to regenerate from

[Tohron]

One more dysfunction (I don't sure if it was mentioned earlier): [vile] feats Deformity (Gaunt) and Deformity (Obese) - nothing in the prerequisites prevent skeletal creature (Undead or Construct) from taking one of those

I guess that would give "big-boned" a new meaning...

[Chronos]

Tarrasque's regeneration is different there, because it specifically says that it can only be killed by a Wish. It also says how it interacts with effects that would ordinarily instantly slay a creature.

A Sphere of Annihilation instantly annihilates 868 HP worth of the Tarrasque's mass, but it can still recover from that.

[glass]

The problem there is: the "... can be slain only by ..." line is blatantly false

It's a rule. It cannot be false (blatantly or otherwise). It can be overridden by more specific rules, but otherwise it stands.

(for example, Regeneration can't save from lack of air - and Tarrasque's Regeneration is no different there)

Sure it is. Because it says so.

[ShurikVch]

It's a rule. It cannot be false (blatantly or otherwise). It can be overridden by more specific rules, but otherwise it stands.

If you don't noticed, it's the "Dysfunctional Rules" thread - it's chock-full of false rules (blatantly or otherwise)
I mean - if you can explain how (or when) to make Leadership checks by RAW...

Sure it is. Because it says so.

No, it doesn't says so.
It says:

The tarrasque regenerates even if it fails a saving throw against a disintegrate spell or a death effect. If the tarrasque fails its save against a spell or effect that would kill it instantly (such as those mentioned above), the spell or effect instead deals nonlethal damage equal to the creature’s full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hp).

Suffocation is neither a spell, nor allow a save (which Tarrasque could fail in order for this rule to kick in)

There are numerous ways to kill the tarrasque without resorting to Wish/Miracle

For example, form-changing spells:
Arboreal Transformation (Complete Mage) and Touch of Juiblex (Book of Vile Darkness) are both turn their victims into plants ("a normal tree" and Green Slime respectively). After the transformation is finished - what's prevent us from burning it down (and, thus, killing the tarrasque without using Wish spell?)
Heck, even "simple" Baleful Polymorph may do it there (possible successful saves aside): once 24 hours is over - it's a little critter without any unusual abilities. After that, you can just stomp on it. (Or, you know, set it in a cage for it to die of old age in a few years - anyway, it would be dead)

Or, you know, Mind Switch - if Grim Psion successfully manifest it on the tarrasque, they would be in the tarrasque's body while keeping their respective class features, and the very 1st level of the class gives Undeath: no Con - no Regeneration, and no Regeneration - dead tarrasque

[glass]

If you don't noticed, it's the "Dysfunctional Rules" thread - it's chock-full of false rules (blatantly or otherwise)

It's full of dysfuctional rules. It's full of of rules that are badly written or just bad. Occasionally, it's full of rules that are fine but have been misinterpreted.

But it can't be full of rules that are false. A rule cannot be wrong about what it is saying - if it says something, by definition it says that thing!

I mean - if you can explain how (or when) to make Leadership checks by RAW...

To the best of my knowledge, there no need or method to make leadership checks - that is what makes the subject of that post dysfunctional. But it doesn't make it "false" - if such checks were introduced, the item would add +5 to them just like it says.

No, it doesn't says so.

This is confusing, because a few posts ago you quoted its saying so, thus:

The problem there is: the "... can be slain only by ..." line is blatantly false

(Plus your SRD quote in a previous post).

Either is says it, in which case it is not false because it makes it true by saying it, because that's how rule work! Or it doesn't say it, in which case it isn't false because it isn't there at all. Unlike Schrodinger's cat, it cannot be both. Yes, I know Shrodinger didn't believe the cat was both alive and dead - he was trying to ridicule Quantum Mechanics not explain it.
(For the record, its the former.)

Rules can have exceptions, implicit or explicit. But if having exceptions made a rule false, the vast majority of the rules in the game would be false.

There are numerous ways to kill the tarrasque without resorting to Wish/Miracle

Quite possibly, but each of them is an explicit or implicit exception to the stated rule. And suffocation is not one of them - nothing makes suffocation an explicit or implicit exception to the tarrasque's clearly stated rule, so it cannot kill it.

Spoiler: Implicit examples

Show

For example, form-changing spells:
Arboreal Transformation (Complete Mage) and Touch of Juiblex (Book of Vile Darkness) are both turn their victims into plants ("a normal tree" and Green Slime respectively). After the transformation is finished - what's prevent us from burning it down (and, thus, killing the tarrasque without using Wish spell?)
Heck, even "simple" Baleful Polymorph may do it there (possible successful saves aside): once 24 hours is over - it's a little critter without any unusual abilities. After that, you can just stomp on it. (Or, you know, set it in a cage for it to die of old age in a few years - anyway, it would be dead)

Or, you know, Mind Switch - if Grim Psion successfully manifest it on the tarrasque, they would be in the tarrasque's body while keeping their respective class features, and the very 1st level of the class gives Undeath: no Con - no Regeneration, and no Regeneration - dead tarrasque

These OTOH (assuming they all work) are fine examples of implicit exceptions. The tarrasque's invulnerability is provided by its Regeneration - remove the one, and you remove the other. A rule not applying is not the same as a rule being false.

[ShurikVch]

It's full of dysfuctional rules. It's full of of rules that are badly written or just bad. Occasionally, it's full of rules that are fine but have been misinterpreted.

But it can't be full of rules that are false. A rule cannot be wrong about what it is saying - if it says something, by definition it says that thing!

O RLY?
Prerequisite for Black Flame Zealot PrC:

Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kukri), Iron Will.

Except - Kukri is a Martial Weapon in 3.5
While, technically, there is a way to actually get EWP with Kukri in 3.5 (some special materials) - would you really say it's the only RAW-legal way to qualify for Black Flame Zealot?

To the best of my knowledge, there no need or method to make leadership checks - that is what makes the subject of that post dysfunctional. But it doesn't make it "false" - if such checks were introduced, the item would add +5 to them just like it says.

If such checks were introduced - then rule wouldn't be false

This is confusing, because a few posts ago you quoted its saying so, thus:

Either is says it, in which case it is not false because it makes it true by saying it, because that's how rule work! Or it doesn't say it, in which case it isn't false because it isn't there at all. Unlike Schrodinger's cat, it cannot be both. Yes, I know Shrodinger didn't believe the cat was both alive and dead - he was trying to ridicule Quantum Mechanics not explain it.
(For the record, its the former.)

Rules can have exceptions, implicit or explicit. But if having exceptions made a rule false, the vast majority of the rules in the game would be false.

You see, it says:

The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

"Only" is a strong statement - it implying there is no exceptions from this rule
Any single exception - no matter how far-fetched - makes it automatically false
(Heck, taken literally, even such methods as Reality Revision or even Alter Reality shouldn't work too - because they aren't "a wish or miracle spell")

Quite possibly, but each of them is an explicit or implicit exception to the stated rule. And suffocation is not one of them - nothing makes suffocation an explicit or implicit exception to the tarrasque's clearly stated rule, so it cannot kill it.

As I already said above, there is a strong statement in the tarrasque's RAW - thus, it gives no place for implicit exceptions (explicit exceptions are, usually, more or less self-explaining)
For suffocation, let's see:

Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.

Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration.

Suffocation
A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The save must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.

Suffocation don't deal hit point damage (but even if it did - Regeneration would be incapable to restore them anyway)
Now, Tarrasque is a Magical Beast

Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.

Maybe, entry for the tarrasque itself says something about its breathing or/and suffocation?
No, I don't seeing it
Thus, unless we're splitting hairs there ("dead ≠ slain", or even "suffocated ≠ dead") - I can's see how it's not an exception (be it explicit or implicit)

The tarrasque's invulnerability is provided by its Regeneration - remove the one, and you remove the other. A rule not applying is not the same as a rule being false.

While true, it was just the simplest example of how to do it

Another way is to make the Regeneration to "just not work" - but it may fall under the same umbrella as the previous group

Next group of methods is "no-save-just-die": RAW says about cases when tarrasque failed its save - not when there was no save possible to begin with (Sphere of Annihilation is a good example)

Now, there are ways which absolutely certainly would avoid the Regeneration - because it's not how Regeneration work

• Ability Drain - if "Allip trick" works, then what will happen if we drain tarrasque's Constitution? (As extreme example of this method - force it to draw the "Death" card from the Deck of Many Things)
• Ability Burn - just like the above (Mind Switch + Body Fuel)
• Ability Penalty - "Con 0" one more time
• negative levels - would it still be alive with 0 HD?
• hit points drain - nothing in the rules says how to restore hit points drain, so I dare to guess even tarrasque's regeneration isn't one of those methods
• thirst - mentioned in the same line as suffocation; Plane Shift it into a plane without any water (and desert-like environment - for Sandstorm rules to kick in)
• make it Undead while skipping the "being dead" part (then - destroy, if you want so)
• Molydeus Venom - ignores poison immunity, does Con damage, at Con 0 victims turn into Mane (CR 1 demon)
• Transcend Mortality via Spellguard of Silverymoon ("You gain these benefits by using up all your remaining life force.")
• Exalted Fury via Magic Jar (Sacrifice: You die. You can be raised or resurrected normally.)
• make the tarrasque your Companion - create Companion of Flame and Hatred (Polyhedron #147) - it would die 5 days later
• make the tarrasque your Familiar - become a Diabolist - Imp would kill and devour the tarrasque (I, personally, don't know how they would do it - but RAW says they would)

[glass]

Lots of examples, ShurikVc. By necessity they fall into one of two categories:

1. They do create an exception to the tarrasque's invulnerability, and therefore can kill the tarrasque, because specific beats general. The tarrasque's general rule does not become "false" (or dysfunctional) because it has exceptions - virtually every rule does.
2. They do not create an exception, and therefore cannot kill the tarrsaque. It's invulnerability hold, and is therefore obviously not "false" (or dysfunctional).

That's it. Those are the only possibilities, it is one or the other. If A is false, NOT A must be true and vice versa. There is no way for A and NOT A to be both true or both false - that's basic logic.

I am not going to go through your myriad examples and figure out which category they fall into, because I cannot be bothered and because it really doesn't matter.

There is perhaps a legitimate criticism that, because the tarrasque's Regeneration explicitly has so much greater scope than the normal Regeneration they should have called it something different. But I don't think that that rises to the level of a dysfunction.