Results 421 to 450 of 534
-
2012-05-31, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
While dragon-style age categories were defined (p38), they have no game mechanic effect -- they provide neither bonus nor penalty. The only ageing effects are applied at the standard age categories, which do not match up with the true dragon style age categories.
There is a line (p38) which notes that DW kobolds don't suffer age penalties, and that you should see the feat description for more info on this. But the feat itself is silent on the matter. Definitely some bad proof-reading going on. And there's no errata on it.
-
2012-06-01, 05:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
True, but the two requirements are not tied together. True Dragon does not require that the draconic age categories CAUSE the power gain. Just that it happens as they age.
Since the standard age categories are linked to years, they also apply, and DW kobolds do age...(admittedly, much slower than normal kobolds), they get power as they age. It doesn't line up with the draconic age categories, but this is not in any way required by the TD definition.
I admit, I would have preferred if they had clarified this(go go proofreading), but using the rules strictly, there's no actual conflict.
-
2012-06-01, 10:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Do we have to have another true dragon debate?
Every rule that cares about true dragons provides its own definition, and that is the definition of a true dragon for the purposes of that rule (specific trumps general). You can be considered a true dragon for some purposes but not others.
This applies to the DWK -- there are some things that merely require you to be a dragon with 12 age categories, in which case the DWK counts. Others may be more specific about what is required.Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-01 at 10:36 AM.
-
2012-06-01, 11:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Also, there's a separate thread about it now, so, wangling specific to that can happen over there.
I do think it's an entirely justifiable house rule to not allow kobolds access to draconic stuff, if that doesn't fit your campaign world. But if it does, go nuts. I believe RAW is clear that it works. "Common sense" varies significantly here.
Regardless of interpretation, I think it's pretty clear that dragons and humans are the fun partiers of the D&D universe, if you catch my drift.
-
2012-06-01, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 038B: Illusionists Retain Some Delusions
Approved, as while it is still lacking in what should be included, illusionists should not be disbelieving their own figments and glamers.
Rule 038C: Illusionists Can't Visually Trick Themselves
Approved. This does make sense, making the illusionist vulnerable to their own mind-affecting traps but not believing what they know to be false.
Conversely,
Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist
Changing this to Disapproved. Nightmare and other phantasms should clearly be able to target the caster, and having your own dream-terror thrown back at you is somewhat of a staple(sp?) in fantasy. Plus, I'd forgotten to consider spells like Hypnotic Pattern, which could ensnare the caster as easily as anyone else.
Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items
Disapproved mainly due to non-magical boots and helmets detecting as magical for no discernible reason. If they aren't providing a magical benefit and aren't magical themselves - at least getting the improved hardness and HP - then they shouldn't be detecting as magical either.SpoilerThank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
The full set is here.
Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread
A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
original image
-
2012-06-01, 12:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Personally, I think the most important aspect of the Illusionists... series of suggestions is that you should not be able to use Greater Shadow Evocation to duplicate Contingency and then fail your Will Save against your own trick to make it work 100% of the time.
Thus, unless an existing rule covers this, I'd propose:
Illusory Contingency is not a fail-safe bargain to drop a school
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency is 60% likely to work.
I find this reasonable also because of Contingency is one of the staples of an undervalued (and underestimated) school, and Gr. Shadow Evocation is often exploited to drop Evocation entirely. Also, there's a Rules of the Game article supporting this.
It may be covered by another rule, but as people might be opposing broader rules for specific reasons while, perhaps and hopefully, not opposing this one, I think it deserves a specific notion.
Andorax, would you assign a number, please?Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-01, 04:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
-
2012-06-01, 06:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I have to disagree that this is RACSD. It's certainly a reasonable houserule (and probably one I'd use myself, if I had an illusionist in my game), but there is nothing in the rules to suggest this might be the case. There isn't any ambiguity about it, and this is one of those "magic is weird" rules where reasonable people can disagree.
Also, it doesn't solve the problem; it's not all that hard to make GSE 100% real even on a successful save. This is clearly houserule territory.
A general argument against the various "illusionists (almost) always disbelieve their illusions" rules:
SpoilerThe great illusionist Randija* pioneered a technique now used by nearly all illusionist. He found that by training his mind and altering his spells ever so slightly, he could make himself believe his own illusions. Extraordinary, yes. Some at the time even called it paradoxical. But the philosophers and skeptics soon had to accept the fact that Randija had developed a very powerful, if situational, tool.
*Cookies if you get the reference.
A blanket Nay vote for such rules.
Rule 53: Nay, as per erikun's argument. I don't know why you stuck that clause in, Andorax.Last edited by Jeff the Green; 2012-06-01 at 06:40 PM.
Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-01, 06:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
-
2012-06-01, 06:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
That's a problem of balance, not of rules not making sense, and so the proper response is a houserule, not declaring that your houserule is common sense. Note where I said "I'd use [it] myself."
And besides, that wouldn't save evocation. It's not versatile enough even with contingency. Contingency is nice, but it's too high a level to come into play most games and can be replicated with a Contingent Spells, which are a lot more versatile and allow duplicates.
Edit: Actually, I would support a limited version of 038. This makes this, what, version D?
A character whose Illusion (Phantasm) spell has been turned on them (as a phantasmal killer spell) does not have proof that an illusion isn’t real and must save against its effect.Last edited by Jeff the Green; 2012-06-01 at 07:07 PM.
Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-02, 12:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I can't take "blanket" Nays, Jeff...too much interpretation as future rules come out of your pre-emptive vote (as well as remembeirng which pre-emptive votes I have to track). Please continue to vote as they come out.
And as per Rule 053...I suppose I can strike that part with no heartburn, but I do have to ask. If a "suit" of platemail +3 includes boots, greaves, gauntlets, helm, etc...if the whole dang suit of armor was enhanced...doesn't it make sense that each separate bit would still detect as magical, being a piece of said overall armor?
Perhaps an A/B split over this issue? Or I'll just drop it entire if others chime in thinking it's meaningless/pointless/detrimental.Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
-
2012-06-02, 01:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I trawled the Dysfunctional Rules thread for a long list of problems to potentially draft rules for, although I suspect some of them are out of scope for this thread.
SpoilerAlthough, of course, you have to have some idea what event you're trying to discern.
Fixing this is a bit tricky, but as suggested later in the thread, perhaps reducing either the base DC, or the surplus needed to understand, would be sufficient.
Another scaling DC that's buggy at the low end.
Both fixed by an extension of 050, presumably.
Presumably, this is a problem with Incarnum, but I don't know the subsystem well enough to be certain of a fix.
There's no apparent solution for this, except to alert DMs to this kind of funky behavior.
This has a simple fix, and should be folded into 025.
Also known as, range increments for larger thrown weapons are currently bizarre.
... And so are some of the other rules for thrown weapons.
Presumably, neutralize poison should have an additional clause to include poison that is not currently affecting the target because it is delayed.
I have no idea how to solve this, since RAI is apparently to ... make them treated like any other creature already is?
These are assorted bugs in the equipment list; to start with, nothing should actually be free.
Solution conveniently provided. ;)
JaronK mentioned later that a lich's similar fear aura has a duration of 1rd/level.
And now for a couple of responses (more later; the illusionist debate is making my brain hurt ).
Quoted for agreement on where to draw the line between a houserule, and a houserule that is also common sense.
I'm inclined to suggest that while such parts are magically enhanced in hardness and HP, and do detect as magical because of that, they have no other function (and are only present as sort of a "package deal").Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-06-02, 01:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I didn't mean for the blanket nay to be official. Just a statement of the fact that I think that such rules are prima facie not RACSD. I should have clarified that; sorry.
Why not just go with the original text I proposed, with a clause that the optional pieces are not magical? (Your modification also leaves out the part specifying that mundane properties are not dependent on having the removable pieces on.) I think it's reasonable to suppose that when you're enchanting armor you're not going to bother with the pieces that are almost guaranteed to be swapped out.Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-02, 02:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Evocation does have a couple of gems, and Tyndmyr has an interesting argument that save-or-die spells are generally worse than blasting.
It is probably the weakest school, but it is not the giant steaming pile of ass that TLN makes it out to be.
Also, a GSE'd contingency doesn't have a 60% chance of working, it fails outright -- check the description of shadow evocation.
-
2012-06-02, 04:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Not sure if this has been covered already in the thread, but I noticed a detail in the Monster Manual that seems like it leads to a good RACSD: the Glossary entry "Manufactured Weapons". This defines any weapon that's not inherent to the creature, just typically carried by it, from three javelins strapped to an orc's back, to a tree that a troll uproots and uses as a club, to the drow's crossbow bolts and the poison they typically put on these. Thusly, it would be simple enough to patch some logical issues with Polymorph et al by simply ruling, "Shapechanging into the form of a creature never gives you the manufactured weapons listed in that creature's Monster Manual entry."
-
2012-06-02, 06:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Good point. This had come up in a previous discussion, and I had forgotten about it.
My objective is not to balance schools, that was just for the rule's funny title, which was probably misleading.
My objective was that the caster should not be able to trick himself to be able to get something working which would have no effect on a disbeliever. As the caster knows the effect is illusory, I find it a very tricky way of reading the rules to gain a desired effect. *tricksy gnomeses*
So I'll reword it:
Rule 54: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work.
Andorax, I've looked at the first post again and concluded to number this rule 54. If 54 has already been assigned in the meantime, feel free to assign a new number.Last edited by Malachei; 2012-06-02 at 08:16 AM.
Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-02, 06:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Scandinavia
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Boats are like nuts, the outside is hard but the inside is usually good to eat.
And remember, things can always get worse.
-
2012-06-02, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Still Nay. I'll also point out that singling out one spell for such treatment (as opposed to saying "you can't disbelieve your own figments/glamers," which I'll concede there is an argument for calling RACSD, even if I think it's weaker than the argument against) is about as far from RACSD as I can think of without writing something like "despite not having wings, gnomes have an Ex. fly speed of 120 ft (clumsy)." It is a reasonable houserule (and again, one I'd likely make) and patches a serious problem of balance, but that doesn't mean it belongs on this list.
If the rest of y'all think it is RACSD, though, you need to add something: the spellcaster cannot intentionally fail the save. Otherwise you have the possibility of the rules saying both that he automatically succeeded and that he automatically failed.Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-03, 06:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Why is a specific ruling automatically a houserule and not worthy of a RACSD entry? Would, for instance, Time Stop, not benefit from a RACSD entry regarding its duration and whether it can be persisted? And how does your gnome example differ from other specific rulings we have in this thread, such as 039 on Kobolds?
I'd like to point out the Rules of the Game: All About Illusions article, which specifies:
The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (you know it isn't real because you created it).
I think this clearly indicates a difference between RAW and RAI, and thereby, motivation/need for a RACSD ruling.
I'll rephrase and put this in one broader, one more specific rule (obviously, I'd vote yes on both, but I actually prefer the broader one):
Rule 54: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions
A spellcaster faced with proof that an effect is illusionary automatically disbelieves the illusion. If you create an illusion that allows a save for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail a save). Because phantasms create effects that are personalized mental impressions, a spellcaster does not automatically disbelieve his own phantasm (for instance, if it is turned back on him via Spell Turning or a Helm of Telepathy).
Comment: See All About Illusions (Part I) for the reasoning behind phantasms.
Rule 54b: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically recognizes the spell as an illusion, automatically disbelieves (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail the save). Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work.Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-03, 06:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
It's not actually a houserule at all, it's rules as written: if you have proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve it. You can't voluntarily fail your saving throw when faced with proof, because you no longer need to make one. It's also not a special resistance to magic.
If you're the caster of an illusion spell, then you know that the manifestation of the spell is fake because you know the spell itself is an illusion, and you automatically identify the manifestation of the spell because you were the one who chose it in the first place.
The actual common-sense issue here is that mind-affecting spells should probably be exempt from the rule on proofs, since they actively alter the mind of the target.Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-03 at 06:46 AM.
-
2012-06-03, 07:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-03, 06:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I still vote Nay on both versions of 54, but I will admit that this is due to a possibly idiosyncratic belief of mine that "magic is weird" and therefore not subject to RACSD unless there's a genuine ambiguity in RAW. I therefore stipulate that should it occur that mine is the single dissenting vote after, oh, 8 votes beyond me, Malachei, and lesser_minion, it changes to an Abstain. I'll confirm that if I'm still around; that's just in case of my sudden absence.
A specific ruling isn't automatically a houserule. Choosing one spell out of tens of spells that have essentially the same effect because it's more troublesome is.
Time Stop would benefit from a ruling because the RAW is clearly ambiguous. The rules of Illusions are not ambiguous, they just lead to apparent contradictions which can be explained by my "magic is weird" theory. And the gnome example isn't different from 039, which I voted Nay on. Unless I'm misinterpreting you?
As for the claim that RAI supports rule 54, I disagree on two fronts. First, Rules as the Designers Declared Them to Be After the Fact (RATDDTTBATF) is not necssarily RAI. They are also potentially a rules patch or an apologia (cf. Monte Cook's statements to the effect that the PHB's imbalance was intentional). Second, he admits the rules don't say so. And they didn't errata it. He is interpreting the rules, using his sensibilities as a guide, and if those sensibilities do not vastly predominate, it's not common sense. So, again, reasonable houserule. I will use it, if/when I DM with an illusionist. Not RACSD.
Finally, read the SRD again; it's not as clear as you think:
SpoilerA character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.
It is reasonable to interpret the word "needs" to imply one can make a saving throw if one wants (and thus fail intentionally if he wants), in the same way that I "need no chocolate" but I can eat chocolate if I want.
Also, I thought of an argument against 54 which may or may not be relevant, and is a bit sciency, so it's spoilered.
SpoilerConsider illusions in real life. For example, this illusion:
(For those who don't get the point, the red lines are perfectly horizontal and the squares are actually squares.)
Once you know the trick, you can treat it as if you don't see it. For example, once I know that the lines are in fact straight and the squares are actually squares, I can estimate the sum of the lengths of the red line segments by measuring a square and counting the number of squares.
On the other hand, I don't stop seeing the illusion. I can, if I desire, treat the illusion as if it were in fact reality; in game terms, fail my Will Save.
It is, again, a reasonable interpretation of Illusions that they work like illusions and thus the Will save can be failed.Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-04, 02:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I'm sorry, but after reading the spell description again, I still don't get what you're driving at here — it does seem to have a 60% (or whatever) chance of working. How is there an exception?
I noted a typo in 038B ("glammer" should be "glamer"); 038C also seems correct to me. Relatedly, why is 054 considered separate from the 038 set (On the Delusions of an Illusionist)?
Finally, I would like to again request adding a provision for the awl pike to 051 (Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet; Titan Whip Reach: Also 15 Feet). Once that's in, I can approve the rule.
Within the next few days I plan to start drafting suggested solutions for the problems from Dysfunctional Rules collected in my last post; however, anyone that wants to get a head start is more than welcome. (And hopefully will do a better job than me, for that matter.)Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-06-04, 04:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-04, 04:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-06-04, 04:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!
-
2012-06-04, 03:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I've purged mention of the 'other pieces' from Rule 053. I had hoped to include mention of them for completeness, but it's a cause for contention that shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the core of the rule itself.
I'm presuming upon erikun's and Jeff the Green's non-votes, with the offending sentence removed.
Jeff the Green, I did not include your alternate wording because it's going to still cause argument (see tuggyne's comment and my own explanation).
willpell, thanks for the suggestion, but I don't know of anyone who's tried to presume separate manufactured weapons as part of a polymorph effect...I don't think that one is even in need of clarification.
Malachei, your illusion/disbelief rule 054 (variations A and B) is now in place.
tuggyne, I've added mention of the Awl Pike to rule 051...anyone else who previously weighed in on 051 may want to recheck and be sure they're still in support of it.
And Jeff the Green...qualified or not, I'm still not taking conditional, contingent, or later-revisable votes. With a few minor exceptions, I read this thread from the point of my last post to current, so anything said prior to that last post will likely be lost to the ages (and I *really* don't want the enormous headache that could result if that becomes a precident. One here and there, I probably could handle if I wanted to, but if the contingent votes start rolling in, I'll be overwhelmed).
Rule 054 (both A and B variants) are now in place, but are disapproved at present.Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
-
2012-06-04, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- The Great PNW
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The new version of 053 has my Aye vote.
Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep
Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
-
2012-06-04, 11:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Enhancing a suit of armor doesn't mean that every bit of the suit is automatically enhanced. After all, when enhancing a spear, only the speartip receives the enhancement - using it as an improvised weapon, or even with feats such that allow additional attacks with polearms, does not receive the enhancement.
Alternatively, this is a good idea.
My biggest problem was A.) It presents a red-herring to PCs, who would detect the bit of armor as magical but be unable to identify or access its magical properities, and B.) Present the logical problem of magically-enhanced material that still has retains the strength of the magical enhancement, but does not act like material that went through magical enhancement.
Other than that, I Approve of the current reading for Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items. You're free to revise/split it as you'd like from there.
Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
Disapprove, because both phantasms and patterns are mind-effecting, and would both potentially have their full effect on the spellcaster. Also, it is already covered with Rule 038C; all phantasms are mind-effecting by definition, so we are just restating the same thing with this rule. I would vote for its removal due to irrelevance, if such a vote matters.
The title doesn't even have any relevance to the rule itself.
Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
As I've approved 38B and 38C already, I'll say Approved for this one as well. However, note that it is already covered by 38C anyways - you don't necessarily need a specific claus for Shadow Contingencies when all shadow illusions are automatically disbelieved by the spellcaster.SpoilerThank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
The full set is here.
Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread
A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
original image
-
2012-06-05, 01:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I think that's a copy/paste error, because in my post above, rule 54A has another title.
In order to improve rule 54A, I'd like to better understand the issues to rephrase it. I'm particularly looking at shadows, figments and glamers, of course so would limiting it to make the rule acceptable to you?Red Hand of Doom Rise of the Runelords
Fiendlord Base Class (WIP, PEACH) Elementalist Base Class (WIP, PEACH)
Awesome Ulitharid avatar by the gifted Ceika. Thank you!