2/28/2013 - Update on Thumb
12/31/2012 - There's a New Comic
12/12/2012 - The "Lost" Holiday Ornament (and Child's Play)
11/26/2012 - Leftover OOTS Swag on Sale (+Thumb Report)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Order of the Stick 889 Get Real
Erfworld 163 The End of Book One
Erfworld Now at Erfworld.com!
RSS Feeds: OOTS

The Duke's Wolf, Part Four by Amber E. Scott
The Duke's Wolf, Part Three by Amber E. Scott
The Duke's Wolf, Part Two by Amber E. Scott

The New World, Part 9: Barbarians by Rich Burlew
The New World, Part 8: Gnomes by Rich Burlew
The New World, Part 7: Names and Cultures by Rich Burlew
Looking for the Gaming Articles?

 



Welcome back! Be sure you have read and understand the Forum Rules.


Go Back   Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20
Register FAQ Members List Mark Forums Read End

D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-18-2012, 01:01 PM   Top  -  End  -  #1
Andorax
Barbarian in the Playground
 
Beholder
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 
Default 65 "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

This forum caters to people with a wide variety of opinions and styles of play. I've seen some remarkable "game tricks" here, things I never even considered before. I've also seen a lot of debate, using the terms RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As Intended...a highly debated term). And I've seen the phrase "common sense" batted about, and hotly argued, on a number of occasions.

In an attempt to bring some clarity and focus to the debate, and to try and balance out some of the more egregious "game tricks" I've seen, I'd like to put a new term out there and see what comes of it. This thread is about RACSD (Rules As Common Sense Dictates).

This is not an attempt to override rules with what physics demands. It is not an attempt to guess at every possible RAI. What it is is an attempt to get a consensus opinion of the very knowledgable playerbase here as to which rules interpretations are reasonable, and which are attempts to circumvent reason, intent, game balance, and so forth.

I welcome all players' input on the specific issues raised, but would ask that those who disagree with the very concept of the thread mind their own business. If you decry the very concept, decry it somewhere else.

I will attempt to use the next post to index the RACSD rulings, and will do my best to keep up on this thread and maintain it. Anyone is welcome to post their own common interpretations that they think are unsure or debatable...please number (and refer to the number of) them according to a similar convention to what has been done in the FAQ thread. Please post the (numbered) rule title in bold, your commentary in regular text, and the actual proposed rules change in italics, as seen below.

For the purpose of this thread, an 80% agreement with a proposed rule change will be considered sufficient consensus to be called "common sense". Note that this means rules will, over time, float in and out of being considered valid.

Rules that receive 80% disagreement will be considered too poorly supported to maintain, and will be noted as "removed by general agreement".

Finally, a rule that has full 100% agreement through 20 votes is considered sufficiently unanimous that the voting will be removed for it as well, and a notation of "approved by unanimous consensus" will be added...no further voting or debate will be needed on these issues.

Please post not only your 'vote' on the rules, but your reasoning for it. Please do NOT vote against a proposed rules change just because you enjoy that particular exploit...admit it's an exploit and don't play by RACSD in your own games. The goal here is to get at at what is genuinely believed to be the actual, reasonable intent.

Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I make no special appeal of the validity of this thread as a source of ultimate authority. It does not have the blessing of major deities, the force of law, or even the approval of WoTC. It is nothing more than the collective opinions of those who have chosen to participate. It is common sense only so far as it is the opinions of all of us in common (nobody set forward as a specific expert or authority) that make sense (seem to be the right and rational way of handling the rules).

The percentages, numbers and named votes are listed so that anyone viewing this thread knows *exactly* how much credence, authority, and validity it holds, and each such individual may judge the value of this list accordingly. 80% was chosen for no specific statistical or politial value, it just seemed to be an appropriate figure at the time the thread was created. Other, lower-percentage rulings that are technically disapproved may themselves still be considered to have value.
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

Last edited by Andorax : 06-25-2012 at 03:33 PM.
Andorax is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:02 PM   Top  -  End  -  #2
Andorax
Barbarian in the Playground
 
Beholder
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Updated 6/25/2012

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier(currently disapproved 72% of 36)
Spoiler


Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels (currently disapproved 67% of 33)
Spoiler


Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike(currently approved 97% of 32)
Spoiler



Rule 005: Dead is Dead (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally(currently approved 89% of 37)
Spoiler


Rule 007: Lions with Hooves(currently approved 85% of 34)
Spoiler


Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage(currently disapproved 50% of 22)
Spoiler


Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed…see Rule 34.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?(currently disapproved 74% of 23)
Spoiler


Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?(currently approved 83% of 24)
Spoiler


Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Removed..see Rule 034.

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed(currently approved 90% of 29)
Spoiler


Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped(currently disapproved 78% of 27)
Spoiler


Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?(currently disapproved 52% of 21)
Spoiler


Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally (Removed by general agreement)

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!(currently approved 92% of 26)
Spoiler


Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles(currently approved 81% of 27)
Spoiler


Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead(currently approved 92% of 26)
Spoiler


Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free Removed by general agreement

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats (currently disapproved 71% of 17)
Spoiler


Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous (approved by unanimous consensus)
Spoiler


Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified(currently disapproved 56% of 25)
Spoiler


Rule 029: Whiplash(currently disapproved 56% of 9)
Spoiler


Rule 030: Strict Aptitude(currently approved 100% of 16)
Spoiler


Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield(currently approved 96% of 26)
Spoiler


Rule 032: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity(currently approved 100% of 9)
Spoiler


Rule 033: No Double Dipping(currently disapproved 40% of 25)
Spoiler


Rule 034: Armored Outfits(currently approved 94% of 17)
Spoiler


Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Removed by general agreement

Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule (see Rule 002)(currently approved 85% of 13)
Spoiler


Rule 037: Minus Infinity(currently disapproved 53% of 15)
Spoiler


Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist(currently disapproved 53% of 19)
Spoiler


Rule 038B: Illusionists Retain Some Delusions(currently approved 80% of 5)
Spoiler


Rule 038C: Illusionists Can't Visually Trick Themselves(currently approved 100% of 4)
Spoiler


Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur(currently approved 82% of 11)
Spoiler


Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain(currently disapproved 64% of 11)
Spoiler


Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness(currently approved 94% of 16)
Spoiler


Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage(currently disapproved 64% of 11)
Spoiler


Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets(currently disapproved 36% of 11)
Spoiler


Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified(currently approved 100% of 4)
Spoiler


Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?(currently disapproved 70% of 10)
Spoiler


Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor(currently approved 100% of 7)
Spoiler


Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality(currently disapproved 67% of 6)
Spoiler


Rule 048: Vow of Non…Human Hurting? Removed by general agreement

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration(currently approved 100% of 7)
Spoiler


Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy(currently approved 100% of 8)
Spoiler


Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.(currently approved 100% of 9)
Spoiler


Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters(currently approved 88% of 8)
Spoiler


Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items(currently approved 100% of 8)
Spoiler


Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions(currently disapproved 20% of 5)
Spoiler


Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency(currently disapproved 40% of 5)
Spoiler


Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check(currently disapproved 50% of 4)
Spoiler


Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10(currently disapproved 33% of 3)
Spoiler


Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization Withdrawn as unnecessary

Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs(currently disapproved 67% of 3)
Spoiler


Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent(currently disapproved 75% of 4)
Spoiler


Rule 060: Dread Necromancers and Scarlet Corsairs Are The Scariest Creatures Around(currently approved 100% of 4)
Spoiler


Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils(currently approved 100% of 6)
Spoiler


Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once(currently approved 100% of 6)
Spoiler


Rule 063: Alternative Dragons can still be True(currently approved 100% of 1)
Spoiler


Rule 064A: Giving Quick Draw a point(currently approved 100% of 1)
Spoiler


Rule 064B: Giving the Gnomish Quickrazor a point(currently approved 100% of 1)
Spoiler


Rule 065: I Met Your Little Brother Once(currently approved 100% of 1)
Spoiler
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

Last edited by Andorax : 06-25-2012 at 03:34 PM.
Andorax is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:03 PM   Top  -  End  -  #3
Andorax
Barbarian in the Playground
 
Beholder
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes.

While strict RAW indicates that you can raise someone from negative hit points to 0 hps in the first round of that individual having failed to hold their breath underwater, this ruling clearly makes no sense. The intent (a DROP to 0 hps) would seem to be clear and much more logical. As such, the following rule is now in effect:

Replaces DMG p304, second paragraph of Drowning: "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious; and is reduced to 0 hp (unless already below that point). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points (unless already below that point) and is dying. In the third round, she drowns (and is dead)."


Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier.

As has frequently been pointed out in a number of builds, Arcane Thesis is a cornerstone of metamagic-reducing builds. By applying metamagic to a spell, you can get the enhanced, modified spell to use up a spell slot one level lower than normal. The text of this feat, however, seems to ignore that there are a selection of feats (yes, even ones published earlier than the PHBII) that already add 0 levels to the slot. Thus, by applying a 0-level metamagic, you can actually DECREASE the level of the spell.

Another common cornerstone for reducing the cost of Metamagic is the Incantatrix prestige class from the 3.5 Player's Guide to Faerun. At 10th level, the incantatrix gains a similar ability that reduces the required increase in spell level, though with a minimum of +1 spell level. This, to my mind, sets something of a precident. Combined with the idea that it shouldn't be EASIER to cast a spell just by adding metamagic components to it, regardless of the number and manner of reducing abilities you utilize (there are others...thus, the rule will be a blanket one), I would propose:

Override for all forms of Metamagic cost reduction: "The application of any individual metamagic feat cannot reduce the spell level of the overall spell. The minimum reduction applied by each individual metamagic feat is +0, regardless of the method utilized to achieve said reduction."


Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.

The most popular use I've seen for this particular bit of slight of hand is the Hellfire Warlock (Fiendish Codex II, p. 89+). It's an unusual class, in that it only has 3 levels to it...and unlike the regular Warlock (who's eldrich blast only improves by +1d6 per two levels), the Hellfire Warlock improves at the rate of +2d6 EACH LEVEL. I, personally, am assuming that this advanced rate of progression is mitigated by the fact that there are only 3 levels to the class.

Others would disagree, and by combining the Hellfire Warlock with the Legacy Champion, manage to get 11 levels' worth of +2d6s to the Eldrich Blast ability. Whether or not this is reasonable, necessary to 'fix' the Warlock, and so forth is entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned...my issue with it is that the Legacy Champion would appear to be intended to keep your regular progresison going, not to stretch a class beyond its limits.

Since I am not sure if there are other sources besides the Legacy Champion that introduce similar "+1 level of your class features", I therefore propose:

Limit to Class Features: "No class (base or prestige) can have its class features progressed beyond the maximum printed level of the class itself, save for the specific exceptions spelled out in the rules for epic progression."
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
Andorax is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:20 PM   Top  -  End  -  #4
Sgt. Cookie
Ogre in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike:

As per RAW of this feat, a Monk dip locks your unarmed damage to a fixed amount.

Add the following line:

If your total character level is higher than your enhanced Monk level, you continue to gain unarmed damage as if you were not a Monk.
__________________
Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

Ponytar by Dirtytabs

Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

Current Project: Attuned Soul, master the power of Wood and Wave. PEACHs needed.

Quotes:
Spoiler
Sgt. Cookie is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:43 PM   Top  -  End  -  #5
Andorax
Barbarian in the Playground
 
Beholder
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 004:

I can definately get behind that...makes perfect sense. Agree.
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
Andorax is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:51 PM   Top  -  End  -  #6
Djinn_in_Tonic
Firbolg in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 
Stuck in a bottle.
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Drowning for Health Purposes should include a rule to allow you to STOP drowning...no such rule currently exists.



Rule 5: Dead is Dead

Currently, a dead character is, by the rules, merely unconscious and paralyzed, which allows them to take purely mental actions: you can play a dead Psion, if you so desire. Add the following.

[i]A dead character is rendered unplayable until returned to life or retired from the game. Such a character can take no actions (including free actions) whatsoever, save a mandatory full-round action each round used solely to gently decompose over the course of several weeks.
__________________

Ingredients

2oz Djinn
5oz Water
1 Lime Wedge


Instructions

Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.
Djinn_in_Tonic is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 04:54 PM   Top  -  End  -  #7
GoodbyeSoberDay
Ogre in the Playground
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I'm not sure this is going to be definitive, but it may certainly be informative.

001: Yes, with the same suggested change as Djinn_In_Tonic proposed.
002: No, I don't think something as abstract as metamagic cost reduction applies to this thread, unless by RACSD you just mean "Common Houserules."
003: No, see 002, and this one isn't even overpowered in most cases. This one I could see how it might not have been intended, but we're in the land of new acronyms.
004: Yeah, sure.
005: Yes, though this is one of those rules that everyone uses anyway.
__________________
Hello milky way...
GoodbyeSoberDay is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:23 PM   Top  -  End  -  #8
tuggyne
Troll in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 
Pondering turns of phrase
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

001: Agree, but again suggest the addition of rules for stopping drowning.
002: Hmm, a bit dubious. I think nearly everyone would agree that adding Invisible Spell to an Arcane Thesis'd Fireball should not give you a level 2 Fireball. However, not everyone would agree that Empower Spell + Invisible Spell should equal Empower Spell. I suggest splitting this into 002a and 002b to determine a more precise consensus, and would register my agreement to 002a ("A spell's level cannot be reduced below its original by any means of metamagic reduction." or similar), but abstain from 002b for now.
003: This seems reasonable enough, although I'd prefer limiting it to the problem class in question if possible.
004: Yeah, this should be fine.
005: Definitely, although a bit of rephrasing wouldn't hurt.

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
Homebrew Sigbox and Quotebox are overflow. RACSD and Top Ten fix and highlight some 3.5 rough spots. See also Gentlemen's Agreement.

Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
Jezrald Ceikatar · ​CitP · ​Catgirl-Killers Society
tuggyne is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:44 PM   Top  -  End  -  #9
KillianHawkeye
Ettin in the Playground
 
ElfRangerGuy
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 
Imagination Land
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."
You might as well go all the way and just say that all creatures are proficient with their natural weapons (unarmed strike is a natural weapon, it just doesn't operate like one). As written, only Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Giants, Magical Beasts, Oozes, Plants, Undead, and Vermin have proficiency with their natural weapons. This is despite the fact that many other types of creatures possess natural attacks, such as Lizardfolk (Humanoid), Minotaurs (Monstrous Humanoid), most demons and devils (Outsider), and IIRC the Jaebrin from MM3 (Fey).
__________________
"Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers

"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krellen View Post
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.
KillianHawkeye is offline  
Old 04-18-2012, 05:44 PM   Top  -  End  -  #10
Menteith
Bugbear in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: 
Minnesnowta
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

The Trample Feat currently gives any mount that successfully Overruns a target a Hoof attack. This occurs regardless of what the mount is. Instead, the line should read;

When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

Mounted Combat in general is sort of borked, but Trample stands out to me as a fairly easy fix to a glaring RAW issue.
__________________
Theory and practice are the same in theory, but differ in practice.
Menteith is offline  
Old 04-19-2012, 03:01 PM   Top  -  End  -  #11
Sgt. Cookie
Ogre in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

008: Dragonblood and heritage:

Unless I am missing something, you have to take several feats or be a sorcerer to benefit from Dragon Heritage feats.

Characters with the Dragonblood subtype count as a Sorcerer of their character level in regards to Dragon Heritage feats.


009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Padded armour; what is there to say about it? ... It's cheap, I suppose. But really, it's padded clothing. A little bulky, perhaps, but nowhere near being labled "armour". It even says in the description that it's only "quilted layers of cloth and batting."

Padded armour is not considered armour for any reason, except for enchanting purposes ONLY, but retains its AC bonus and maximum dexterity bonus. Padded armour must still be made masterwork before it can be enchanted. It only costs 100 additional gold to create masterwork padded armour.
__________________
Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

Ponytar by Dirtytabs

Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

Current Project: Attuned Soul, master the power of Wood and Wave. PEACHs needed.

Quotes:
Spoiler
Sgt. Cookie is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 11:17 AM   Top  -  End  -  #12
Andorax
Barbarian in the Playground
 
Beholder
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Regarding Rule 002: The intent here isn't "common houserules"...it's to say that nowhere along the line was there an intent that you can make a spell LOWER level by ADDING metamagic to it. I know this particular rules loophole is popular...and sadly, that popularity means it's likely to not pass a general consensus muster, but I stand by both the rule and the reasoning behind it.

Regarding Rule 003: It's not a question of whether or not it "isn't even overpowered". In fact, some of these (see #4) are intended to correct unnecessary weakening of abilities through obscure corner-cases. I just genuinely believe that a class's features aren't intended to be exptended beyond the actual levels of the class...and the cited example is a pretty gross example of that.

I didn't narrow it down to just the specific class (both abusing and abused) because my resources to research the issue are limited...I don't know how many other short clases have desirable extensible features, and how many other "+class features" classes exist. The principle itself is sound and logical, I can't think of a good reason to have exceptions.

Regardinr Rule 005: Minor reword...sorry to de-humor it, but I can just see someone working in some bizarre ability that lets you do something whenever you're also taking a full round action.

Regarding Rule 006: Hopefully, you guys are ok with my rewording. It's pretty general, but I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be. The concept is universal (and obvioiusly, I'm for it).

Regarding Rule 007: I'm also for this...added a bit for clarification. I'm presuming your intent wasn't to allow bite, gore, or wing slap attacks during a trample.

Regarding Rule 008: My take on this is that this is specifically aimed at Sorcerers. The subsequent feats also have Sorcerer level requirements, the feats nearly all relate to arcane casting...I read it as something intended specifically for the sorceror class, the class that "gains its powers from a hint of draconic ancestry".

I know it's hard to explain the distinction, as I'd probably allow this to stand as a house rule if one of my players asked it...but I can't honestly say that intent and common sense dictates this rule.

Regarding Rule 009: Regular clothing is considered +0/No max dex/no penalty/no ACF armor for the purpose of adding things to it (such as the Magic Vestment spell). In light of this, I don't see why padded armor needs to be made "not armor". Something has to be the lightest form of armor, it's described and established as such in that role, and yes...bulky quilted layers of cloth are (ever so slightly) harder to move around in than a regular t-shirt. I think it's clear that Padded armor was intended to be armor, even if just barely.
__________________
Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
Andorax is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 11:53 AM   Top  -  End  -  #13
JadePhoenix
Barbarian in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I disaprove of 3, 8 and 9.
JadePhoenix is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 12:04 PM   Top  -  End  -  #14
Doug Lampert
Bugbear in the Playground
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Not correct by common sense or history or usage of the language (the first definition I get on dictionary.com is "any covering worn as a defense against weapons"). At what point in "you can enchant it for defense" is this NOT a covering worn as a defense against weapons? Seriously. Heavy cloth was FREQUENTLY used as armor and was considered armor by the makers and the wearers. I simply see no justification for the proposed rule.

Last edited by Doug Lampert : 04-20-2012 at 12:05 PM.
Doug Lampert is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 12:18 PM   Top  -  End  -  #15
Darrin
Troll in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 
Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 008: What is the point of the Dragontouched feat, then? I have no idea if I have a vote, but I'm "Against" it. I'm a little puzzled why you'd want to clarify the sorcerer thing, when I would think the biggest head-scratcher for Dragonborn is "Can I apply this to non-humanoids?"

Rule 009: I prefer treating padded armor as armor +1, and clothing as armor +0. Simpler that way. Against.

You might want to address the Mounted Combat/Ride-By Attack mess:

Rule 0??: While mounted, a rider cannot charge. If the rider directs his mount to charge (either as a move action or as a free action), then the rider gains the same attack bonus and AC penalty for charging as the mount. When using Spirited Charge, the mount uses a full-round action to charge, and the rider deals double damage with a melee weapon (triple wth a lance). Directing the mount is either a move action ("Control Mount in Battle", DC 20), or a free action on mounts that are trained for battle ("Fight with a Warhorse", DC 10). If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available.

Rule 0??: Ride-By Attack. The mount must use a full-round action to charge, not the rider. The rider directs the mount to the closest square where the rider can attack and the mount can still continue forward in a straight line. The rider may make a single melee attack from this square as per the charge rules. If there is no such square, or if the mount's path is blocked by an obstacle that it can't jump over, then it is not possible to charge. At the end of the mount's movement, if any opponents are still within melee range, the mount may make a single melee attack as per the charge rules.

Last edited by Darrin : 04-20-2012 at 12:20 PM.
Darrin is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 12:35 PM   Top  -  End  -  #16
JoeYounger
Dwarf in the Playground
 
AssassinGuy
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 
Tinker AFB
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

I don't see the point in this, anyone care to enlighten me as to why this clarification should exist?
__________________
________________________________________

I am credible! Proof below!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericgrau View Post
I came up with a line of reasoning and resulting numbers and they turned out to be the same as JoeYounger's.
JoeYounger is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 01:07 PM   Top  -  End  -  #17
Ashtagon
Ogre in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 
Hillvale, Isle of dawn
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

1 - Agree

2 - Agree

3 - Agree

4 - Other.

Should be re-written to: Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels.

This allows for the possibility that either of these two calculations could be the one that results in the higher damage.

5 - Agree

6 - Agree.

As an extension of this, all characters should be assumed to be proficient with their natural weapons, unless specifically called out in their racial description. The SRD says all humanoid types are "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." Who chooses which one applies?

7 - Disagree.

A creature that has a hoof attack can make a hoof attack as part of its trample feat usage. if it doesn't normally have a hoof attack, it doesn't get to make one.

8 - Disagree.

These feats were written to let sorcerers have nice things.

9 - Disagree.

Although I don't see how this actually changes anything. However...

10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.

This is just a logical extension of what padded armour is. There's no logical reason for heavy clothing to be allowed enchantments, but light clothing not.

Edit: Game-balance-wise, the classes that would benefit most are monks (who need something nice anyway) and sorcerers/wizards (who don't really gain all that much considering they probably have their mage armour up first thing in the morning anyway). This also allows for more protection in "diplomacy" or "court" situations, provided players are willing to spend some of their WBL on secondary armour.
__________________
Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
Blue is strictly for emphasis.
And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

Avatar by The Succubus

Last edited by Ashtagon : 04-20-2012 at 01:37 PM.
Ashtagon is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 01:25 PM   Top  -  End  -  #18
Talya
Troll in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 
Icy Evil Canadia
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - indifferent.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Duh.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Obvious.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yeah.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No. Padded armor is considered armor because it adds a nonmagical armor bonus and can be enchanted as armor. It also has a max dex bonus. I think padded armor was already "working as intended."
__________________
Creator of the Vow of Nudity
"Rouges are overpowdered." ~ Killer Angel
We didn't cast the [Fire]...
LGBTitP
Talya is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 01:34 PM   Top  -  End  -  #19
NNescio
Bugbear in the Playground
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I strongly disapprove of Rule 9 because it is factually incorrect and doesn't appear to serve any purpose.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

Last edited by NNescio : 04-20-2012 at 01:36 PM.
NNescio is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 01:57 PM   Top  -  End  -  #20
docnessuno
Bugbear in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 
Nowhere around
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agree.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agree.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agree.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agree.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agree.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agree.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - Disagree.
docnessuno is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:00 PM   Top  -  End  -  #21
Talya
Troll in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 
Icy Evil Canadia
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by docnessuno View Post
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.
That can already be done with another feat.
__________________
Creator of the Vow of Nudity
"Rouges are overpowdered." ~ Killer Angel
We didn't cast the [Fire]...
LGBTitP
Talya is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:03 PM   Top  -  End  -  #22
Telonius
Firbolg in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 
Wandering in Harrekh
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 011 - Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox. A power or ability granted by a Prestige Class will never cause a character to become ineligible for that Prestige Class.
__________________
Chosen of Harrekh is now available for the Kindle! Search Amazon or link through my blog to find it.
The High Priestess's daughter has returned, but clouds are on the horizon.
When death strikes in the Seat of Stars, will the Border hold?
Elsabeth's path is set, for she is the Chosen of the Goddess;
Chosen of Harrekh.

Scribe of Harrekh - my new blog! News about the book and random bloggy musings.
Find me on Facebook!

Last edited by Telonius : 04-20-2012 at 02:06 PM.
Telonius is online now  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:05 PM   Top  -  End  -  #23
docnessuno
Bugbear in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 
Nowhere around
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talya View Post
That can already be done with another feat.
Only by monks (the only ones able to treat unarmed strikes as natural attacks), and i don't consider a feat giving one of the most class-defining abilities by himself (even if slightly nerfed) good design. Also the feat doesn't account for size, so a "fine" creature would still hit for 2d6 (ouch).
docnessuno is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:17 PM   Top  -  End  -  #24
Lapak
Bugbear in the Playground
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Agree.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Agree. Not only does it not make sense on the face of it (adding complications should not make something easier) this makes metamagic track with every other penalty-reduction. You can't have armor with a negative Arcane Failure Chance or Armor Check penalty, having more Energy Resistance than damage done to you doesn't transform that damage into healing, and reducing the level-adjustment of metamagic shouldn't drop it below zero.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: No opinion.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Agree.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Agree.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Undecided. On the one hand, there are obviously people who don't know how to throw a punch; on the other, there are obvious holes in existing classes if you don't cover them with a house rule.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves: No opinion.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage: Not familiar enough with this to say.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing: Disagree. Padded armor is very definitely armor.

Rule 010: Agree.
Lapak is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:22 PM   Top  -  End  -  #25
Lonely Tylenol
Bugbear in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I agree with:
Rule 1: Drowning is drowning. The fact that it reduces your health to 0, by RAW, was clearly not intended to increase your health.
Rule 2: Again, technically RAW-legal (and I have done this to create a fiery empowered Orb of Cold as a level 4 spell; I quit before going higher levels), but it should never have been.
Rule 5: Dead is dead.
Rule 6: Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes because they... Aren't proficient with simple weapons? Yeah, sure, OK, roll to punch things with your fists at -4. Makes perfect sense.

I disagree with:
Rule 3: Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong (it's early and I'm weary), but doesn't this explicitly state that no class can have its features advanced beyond 20 unless specific mention was made of them? That seems very awkward, as it's going to boil down to what book the class was printed in, as opposed to the actual merits of the class features being advanced. (There are epic progressions for Barbarian through Rogue; are there any for Knight, Factotum, Scout, or Dragon Shaman? Common sense dictates that the Fighting Challenge/Shield Block features of the Knight, Inspiration progression of the Factotum, Skirmish, bonus feat and perhaps battle fortitude progressions of the Scout, and breath, aura and natural armor progressions of the Dragon Shaman, respectively, should naturally progress to epic levels, but (and unless I'm missing something; I'm not too familiar with the epic rules) they won't because specific mention was not made of them, which seems contrary.
Rule 7:
Trampling with paws doesn't make sense. Nor, for that matter, does trampling with unarmed strike (which is what a human with trample, which can happen with the right feats/maneuvers/spells, though I can't recall how, would do). A monk steps on you harder? This feat should instead have "prerequisite: hooves (4)".
Rule 9:
Padded armor is, in fact, distinct from heavy clothing. A fitting modern-day comparison might be the difference between the armor padding that fencers and other swordsman (such as those practicing kendo) have to use, vs.... Heavy clothing.

Further, I maintain that it makes no sense for clothing to ever have an armor bonus. +5 loincloth makes a lot less sense than counting padded armor (which is historically a thing that exists) as armor.

I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.
Rule 8: Isn't there already a feat that does this? Or am I misremembering?
__________________
Homebrewiness!
Base Classes: Blood Mage
Prestige Classes: Trophy Hunter / Spellshatterer
Miscellany: Permanency Support
Resources:
Alchemical Items/Special Materials List / E6 Magic Item List
Lonely Tylenol is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:38 PM   Top  -  End  -  #26
Lapak
Bugbear in the Playground
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.
Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.
Lapak is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:52 PM   Top  -  End  -  #27
Keld Denar
Titan in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 
Seattle, WA
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I'm not left handed

No character has an offhand unless they are TWFing. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand. This goes normal for any character, mmonk or otherwise.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." This phrase is redundant, since without TWF, which isn't mentioned in that text, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for ANY character, unarmed or otherwise. The default state of being for any character is sans-offhand, and only when a character TWFs does that character gain an offhand attack with all of the mechanical benefits and penalties that apply. I believe that the text there was simply to clarify that even though a monk may strike with multiple surfaces of their body in any combination, they aren't TWFing, and thus aren't affected by the TWFing rules. It's a backwards way of saying it, but its a valid interpretation that leads to the most internal consistancy across the rules. Monks play by the exact same TWFing rules as everyone else, why should they be different?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
_________________________________
A beholder’s favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.
Keld Denar is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 03:21 PM   Top  -  End  -  #28
prufock
Bugbear in the Playground
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 
Newfoundland
Gender: Male
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.
I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keld Denar
The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
It IS redundant, but I think it's there to point out the difference between Flurry of Blows and two-weapon-fighting. Unarmed strike is technically one weapon, not two, despite that you can interchange body parts.

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

Last edited by prufock : 04-20-2012 at 03:29 PM.
prufock is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 03:33 PM   Top  -  End  -  #29
Talya
Troll in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 
Icy Evil Canadia
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
I'm not left handed

No character has an offhand unless they are TWFing. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand. This goes normal for any character, mmonk or otherwise.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." This phrase is redundant, since without TWF, which isn't mentioned in that text, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for ANY character, unarmed or otherwise. The default state of being for any character is sans-offhand, and only when a character TWFs does that character gain an offhand attack with all of the mechanical benefits and penalties that apply. I believe that the text there was simply to clarify that even though a monk may strike with multiple surfaces of their body in any combination, they aren't TWFing, and thus aren't affected by the TWFing rules. It's a backwards way of saying it, but its a valid interpretation that leads to the most internal consistancy across the rules. Monks play by the exact same TWFing rules as everyone else, why should they be different?
I completely agree with this, but it's more of a clarification than anything else, because by RAW, if you read closely enough, it already functions this way. You're just making it much more clear than the rules specify.
__________________
Creator of the Vow of Nudity
"Rouges are overpowdered." ~ Killer Angel
We didn't cast the [Fire]...
LGBTitP
Talya is offline  
Old 04-20-2012, 03:41 PM   Top  -  End  -  #30
Ashtagon
Ogre in the Playground
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 
Hillvale, Isle of dawn
Gender: Female
Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Quote:
Originally Posted by prufock View Post
I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.
Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.
__________________
Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
Blue is strictly for emphasis.
And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

Avatar by The Succubus
Ashtagon is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Usage of this site, including but not limited to making or editing a post or private message or the creation of an account, constitutes acceptance of the Forum Rules.