Results 481 to 510 of 534
-
2012-06-23, 02:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Not entirely implausible. Now take elementals, which don't have frightful presence, but do have larger varieties that are fundamentally similar and yet harder to identify. How does that make sense?
Precisely. Dangerous = bewildering. Most people are not coldly efficient and logical in the face of deadly peril; even professional soldiers who have been in and out of the war zone a hundred times still have some degree of difficulty coping with the stress every single time they again face the prospect of being blown to bits with a mortar shell.
(I'd also argue that the danger of a brown bear vs a black bear wouldn't be evident until you made a knowledge check, for example.)
Then, too, it doesn't work if you're in no immediate danger: suppose you are completely hidden from the monster and can study it at your leisure without it becoming aware of you; or suppose it is aware of you and isn't aggressive at the moment; or suppose you're negotiating with a more human-like opponent. There is no obvious justification for removing the HD-based scaling in any of these cases, even though it makes even less sense than usual.
Finally, it would justify a fixed penalty on the knowledge check, quite possibly, but one that increases linearly?
Okay, that one I'll give you is utterly wrong. Perhaps there should be an adjustment of -2 for animals and vermin and +2 for extraplanar creatures, or just something to do with the general commonality in an area.
The idea of adjustments is a good one, I think.
[quote]It'd be fairly obvious to rule that class levels don't stack with race levels for purpose of this identification - it'd be one check to identify him as human, which would ignore all his HD since there are no human Racial HD, and another check to identify him as a Fighter based on the trappings of his trade; that might be the difficult one, but class-based checks might well be easier rather than harder at higher levels. (I'm not sure whether class identification checks actually exist in RAW but it'd make some sense to houserule them in, perhaps a Knowledge: Combat skill is defined as allowing you to guess what fighter bonus feats a character seems to be properly equipped for or to take the corresponding stance when a fight begins.)
Eh, fair enough; that one was a throwaway example of strict RAW that no one would likely follow anyway. (I believe Martial Lore is designed to act like Spellcraft for martial adepts, but I don't know of a Knowledge subskill for the purpose.)
The rule does an imperfect job of what it's meant to accomplish; big surprise. It doesn't mean it has no applicability. The calculation isn't binary all the time; in some cases the range between know/dunno is so narrow as to be practically nonexistent, but in other cases there are a lot of uncertain factors, which is when the dice come into play. If the rules were complicated enough to serve as a perfect model, we'd never find the time to read them, nor remember everything we read. (Though it would be helpful to define a set of rules in such detail if you were programming a computer game that could automate them.)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
-
2012-06-23, 02:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Elementals probably should have frightful presence, or a similar ability. They're aspects of primordial chaos, things which are alive that are made of stuff that shouldn't be alive. The more elder and powerful they are, the more nearly they resemble the hoary and eldritch lords of their planes - indeed, if you know just a little about them, they're even more terrifying, because they're literally all small pieces of those ultra-elemental horrors. The only name I remember is Cryonax and there aren't always cold elementals, but if we assume there are, each and every cold elemental is really just a tiny piece of Cryonax, serving as his eyes and ears throughout the world he intends to conquer. So yeah, they ought to be frightening, and more so the more uber they are.
your first fight against dozens of dretches is undoubtedly terrifying in the extreme, but studying a single one may give you the key to all of them. And according to the rules a single dretch is dead easy to study: DC 12. "Hit 'em with Sound Burst!"
Then, too, it doesn't work if you're in no immediate danger
When you see a creature that you've never seen before, the GM rolls to determine whether you're able to comprehend what you're looking at, and if the roll fails, one of the reasons that failure might have occurred is that your character's first reaction was blind, unlreasoning terror of the thing that isn't actually a threat to him. Maybe phobias are more common among the residents of D&D world; it's not like they don't have reason to live in a state of constant near-panic given how absurdly dangerous their reality is. (Indeed, perhaps that's why their society can't evolve beyond the medieval age; they keep being plunged back into the dark ages by witch-panics and plagues and such, and reason can never get a foodhold because the population as a whole is just too anxiety-riddled to be sensible on any unilateral basis.)
Finally, it would justify a fixed penalty on the knowledge check, quite possibly, but one that increases linearly?
Eh, fair enough; that one was a throwaway example of strict RAW that no one would likely follow anyway. (I believe Martial Lore is designed to act like Spellcraft for martial adepts, but I don't know of a Knowledge subskill for the purpose.)
-
2012-06-23, 05:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
How do you automatically know the spell is an illusion? Probably true for a prepared caster like a Wizard since he had to succeed in making the Spellcraft roll to learn it in the first place, but what about a Sorcerer who has no ranks in Spellcraft? He doesn't know his spell is an illusion. He knows he makes magic stuff happen.
On the topic of Knowledge checks to identify common creatures: the biggest problem with this entire setup is the restriction on untrained knowledge checks. Untrained knowledge checks can never, ever be successful if the DC is above 10, so anyone who is not trained in the relevant knowledge skill can never, under any circumstances, identify any creature, because all checks to identify creatures are always at least DC 11. The proposed solution under Rule 056 corrects that problem for 1 HD creatures, so it's an improvement, but it doesn't address the general problem. Circumstance bonuses should be able to allow say, a farmer to identify a horse automatically, but the untrained rule prevents that from being possible unless the farmer has at least 1 rank of Knowledge: Nature.
Let's see, as for other rules since last I checked:
Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration
Yes. There doesn't seem to be any reason why an object that doesn't get a saving throw is immune to disintegration simply based on being living.
Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy
Yes. I see no argument against this.
Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.
Yes. Again, I see no argument against this.
Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters
Yes. I always assumed this was the rule already.
Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items
Yes.
Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions
No. See above. Also same reasoning as my earlier response to Rule 038.
Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
No. I don't see this as common sense. Maybe a reasonable balance rule, but not even necessarily that.
Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check
Yes. I am not, at the moment, seeing any problems with this change or with the amount of the change (all the results of this change that I can think of seem to wind up falling within common sense boundaries).
Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10
Unsure. This fixes some problems, but misses the core problem. It IS an improvement, but it also misses the point.
Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization
I fail to see the point of this one. As far as I can tell from reading the neutralize poison and delay poison descriptions, there is no interaction between those spells that would require this clarification: neutralize poison already does this.
Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs
Uhh. Why? Some sort of explanation as to the reasoning behind these changes would be nice.
Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent
Yes. Took me a bit to figure this one out though, and a better explanation of its reasoning could help.
Note: It needs its wording corrected from 'miss chance from cover granted targets by anything less than total concealment' to 'miss chance from concealment granted to targets by anything less than total concealment'.
Rule 060: Dread Necromancers and Scarlet Corsairs Are The Scariest Creatures Around
Yes. Lack of duration on these effects looks like a clear oversight, and one round/level seems like a reasonable common-sense duration.
Note: Perhaps it should be clarified to one round per class level.
Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils
Yes. Sure, why not. Not that I recall ever wanting to, but it seems reasonable.
Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once
Yes - conditional on lesser_minion's wording correction in post #469.-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
-
2012-06-23, 06:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I believe the assumption made by the rules is that sorcerers do know what their own spells do and what their own spells are, even if they don't have spellcraft. Otherwise, you'd end up with difficulties -- imagine what happens when a sorcerer who doesn't know his illusions aren't real comes up against a pit or a chasm.
"I know, I'll make a magical bridge over it!"Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-23 at 06:11 AM.
-
2012-06-23, 07:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I would say that Sorcerers presumably know the effects of their spells; they don't necessarily know anything about spell schools, subschools, types, etc. They know what happens when they cast a spell because they've done it and figured out what the effect is, but unless they have the appropriate skill ranks, they don't know the magical 'rules' behind how that spell is achieved.
Therefore, a sorcerer could very plausibly know that he has a spell that does a bunch of different stuff depending on how he casts it, and if he's confident that the spell will work in the way he wants it to, then it does, but if he doubts his magic, then it fails. Someone with Spellcraft can identify that spell is Greater Shadow Evocation and know that when the sorcerer doubts his magic it means he's passing his will save, and when he's confident in his magic he's failing it.
On the other hand, the Sorcerer will also know that when he casts this other spell he has, the stuff that appears is always fake. Not because he recognizes it as fake, but because he has never had that particular spell create something that's real. He doesn't know why, but he knows that's how it works. The guy with Spellcraft identifies him casting silent image.
That's one (of what is undoubtedly many) possible interpretation(s) of why a caster might be able to believe in their own illusions.-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
-
2012-06-23, 06:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
(reply to Knowledge check weirdness over here)
Wow, you're right; I was ... working from the wrong text of neutralize? *scratches head*
Thanks for knocking off another redundant fix, then.
Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs
Uhh. Why? Some sort of explanation as to the reasoning behind these changes would be nice.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
-
2012-06-24, 01:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Ah, I see. But, not all of these are in error.
Spellbook price at 15 GP: A single loose sheet of parchment would appear to be twice the size of a spellbook page. It costs 0.2 gp (2 silver). See 140 Complete Arcane where it breaks down spellbook price. Leather cover: 5 gp, parchment pages: 10 gp. Also for a similar item that follows a similar pattern (loose sheet being larger than book sheet), there is the Terepekkian Blank Book and Paper from 43 Ghostwalk. Paper is more expensive, but is not the material used in standard 15 gp spellbooks.
Spiked Chain: That doesn't even work, considering a spiked chain is certainly shorter than 10 feet, and is not simply a straight length of chain (see illustration on 119 PHB for an example). Also, removing the spikes wouldn't exactly be a simple matter. How do you 'remove spikes' when the spikes aren't an add-on, but part of the forging of the chain?
Flasks, ladders, and free items I agree with there, though.-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
-
2012-06-24, 01:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
OK, I can accept this explanation, although I find the idea of using anything but the highest-quality paper in a spellbook, of all things, to be a little odd. Maybe spell inscription inks would be cheaper if they just had acid-free!
Spiked Chain: That doesn't even work, considering a spiked chain is certainly shorter than 10 feet, and is not simply a straight length of chain (see illustration on 119 PHB for an example). Also, removing the spikes wouldn't exactly be a simple matter. How do you 'remove spikes' when the spikes aren't an add-on, but part of the forging of the chain?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
-
2012-06-24, 01:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
- 49 Agree
- 51 Agree
- 52 Disagree. This should only apply to creatures that are normally allowed to take class levels. Even then, I'm not 100% sure it should apply in all cases.
- 53 Agree
- 57 Disagree. Magic should only do what it says on the tin.
- 61 Agree
- 62 RAW says it's a move action. This item can't decide whether it's re-stating that or if it wants this to be a free action. tbh the real fix is to abolish spell components, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-06-24 at 01:35 AM.
-
2012-06-24, 04:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Illinois
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Has everyone read the rules FAQ on tower shields?
If I could play dungeons & dragons with only four books: MM I, DMG, PHB, & ToB
Dragon Shaman Handbook. Fighter Fix.
Camel's Handbook
-
2012-06-24, 07:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Improving Monsters strongly suggests that any creature with at least 3 Int can take class levels. Can you point to a specific example of a 1HD creature with 3 or more Int that should definitely not be allowed to trade in its racial HD?
57 Disagree. Magic should only do what it says on the tin.
62 RAW says it's a move action. This item can't decide whether it's re-stating that or if it wants this to be a free action. tbh the real fix is to abolish spell components, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Interesting. It appears to be wedging in a partial facing system, which I still think is a bad idea.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
-
2012-06-24, 07:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Illinois
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
If I could play dungeons & dragons with only four books: MM I, DMG, PHB, & ToB
Dragon Shaman Handbook. Fighter Fix.
Camel's Handbook
-
2012-06-24, 07:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-06-24, 08:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Pretty much this. Someone much earlier in the thread (Tyndmyr?) mentioned that while they use a facing-lite system, they wouldn't really consider it a common sense solution, given the rules as they stand. I'd tend to agree with this; however, a compromise could perhaps be developed that would mesh better with the rest of the system.
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
-
2012-06-25, 08:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I'm wondering what to do about something that JaronK pointed out (I don't have a link to the post) a while back. By RAW, a 1st-level wizard receives, free of charge, a spellbook with a resale value of at least 1,500 gp.
How useful this is depends on the game: there are obviously cases like low-level one-shots where this would totally wreck things (guard dogs are available in vast numbers with that much money, and each is individually more powerful than a 1st-level fighter). I don't think anyone's done an analysis to determine how likely it is to be a problem in a longer game.
One solution would be to start the wizard off owing 2,000 gp in student loans, but that would be difficult to phrase naturally without turning it into a potential railroading tool. Can anyone think of something better?
Actually, the rules say it's a free action unless you're grappled (in which case it's a full-round action). The point of the patch is to make it a non-action: you can do it for free as part of the action used to cast a spell.Last edited by lesser_minion; 2012-06-25 at 01:36 PM.
-
2012-06-25, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Kazyan, I don't really see there being separate issues or concerns about these two dragon types...I'll resplit them if there seems to be an issue, but for now I'll keep 'em as one.
Yorae, welcome to the discussion. It's becomming an incresingly more daunting prospect to fill them all in from the beginning, so thanks for putting in the time and trouble.
I've not recorded a vote for you on Rule 010, 034, 039, 049, 059. I'm not able to get a clear statement of intent from you that doesn't involve a change to an established rule. Feel free to debate it, and clarify your stance on these issues.
I would point out (as I have before) regarding rule 015...even objects get a will save.
Regarding Rule 034...it's the combination of the A&E rules and the MiC rules that count clothing as equivalent to Bracers of Armor (ie, providing an Armor bonus, not an Enhancement bonus TO armor).
I'm not sure where I'm going to fall on 056...haven't weighed in because my personal preference is for adjucating considerable circumstance bonuses in these situations (reducing it to a 9+ doesn't help with multiple HD farm animals such as a heavy horse or a cow)...but I'm not ready to go against it yet either, as it does make a certain amount of sense and is an easy quick-fix to a good portion of the problem.
The one other thing I'd note (see Pixie vs Horse) is that it's one thing to make the basic check (yep, that's what it is) and another to get their full bio. It's DC 13 to tell what a Heavy horse is...but that tells you everything you ever need to know about one. It's a DC 13 check to call a pixie a pixie, but there's other 'specific abilities/weaknesses' that you'd have to mine to really have all the relevant data.
The more exotic something is, the more there is to know about it...and that part of the knowledge check rules the system gets right.
With that thought in mind, I'm going to toss another new rule onto the pile myself:
Rule 065: I Met Your Little Brother Once
If you can make a successful knowledge check (PHB 78) to identify a fundamentally similar creature's traits, you can successfully identify all of the common traits between that creature and the one you are observing. The exact defition of fundamentally similar may vary by DM, but at its most basic level, it includes all versions of a creature that advances by ages or age categories (for example, the True Dragons MM68-88, Neogi Spawn -> Adult Neogi MM2 159), all creatures who are called the same thing with only a size category distinction (for example, the Elementals MM 95-101), and any creature that is described as being a "Lesser" or "Greater" version of another (Stone Golem -> Greater Stone Golem, Fihyr -> Great Fihyr (MM2 100)).
Rule 015 is now disapproved
Rule 055 is now disapproved
Rule 056 is now disapproved
Rule 057 is now disapproved
Rule 058 is now disapproved
Rule 059 is now disapproved
Please note rule 062 has been reworded.
Rule 063 has been added and is approved
Rule 064A&B have been added and are approved
Rule 065 has been added and is approvedWhadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
-
2012-06-25, 06:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Revisiting this a bit: initially I assumed you were referring to 056 only, but since you haven't revised your votes for any of the others, I'm a little more puzzled. 055 is fairly straightforward, and reasonably correct. 058 is also rather simple, and there are no "hopelessly borked" rules applicable; I can't figure out what you object to in 059 at all.
Hmm, this is quite a problem. You could remove the free auto-access to all cantrips ever, and require the wizard to select, say, 10 of them (or however many).
My instinct, though, for what it's worth, is to start a new thread to hash out the ramifications of all this before pulling it back in here.
Yeah, I'd like as much contribution to the Knowledge check brainstorming as possible, to see if there's a better way to do this. Just a note, though: circumstance bonuses technically don't help 0-rank characters any, because they can't make the checks in the first place. (A circumstance drop to the DC works, of course.)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
-
2013-01-16, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- In a castle under the sea
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I vote nay on 28, all versions of 38, both versions of 54, and both versions of 54. I vote aye on the others up for voting.
While most of these do make sense, there are some issues I have with some.
28: I see no reason why it should be so. Maybe if it specified, say, a minimum duration of the effect (you can't train enough to be able to learn, say, Two-Weapon Fighting if you can't qualify for it at least X hours a day), but as-is, no. Simply having a cleric in the party would let you train huge chains of feats you could only train for a few minutes a day and would almost never use. It's nonsensical.
38: If such a situation comes up, it should be allowed. The human(oid) brain is great at self-deception; if it can think its arm is someone else's, it can believe its own illusions.
54: This is basically the same as 38, and I reject it on the same grounds.
I would like to propose an alternate version of #28, as well.
Rule 028B: Qualifiable or Disqualified
If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means for a minimum of 6 hours per day, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
(Addition mine, the number chosen was an average of my two gut feelings [4 and 8]. If you think some other number would be better, feel free to change it.)
-
2013-01-16, 11:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Can you change "see rule 34" to, perhaps, "see rule 034"? It might just be me, but when I saw that the first two times, I thought "what does squick have to do with armor?" Plus, 034 is how you have it labeled.
Also, I'm for 65, and against 64A&B, because it makes martial characters worse, and using a skill at -20 to duplicate a weak feat/situational combat ability doesn't seem bad to me.Last edited by rockdeworld; 2013-01-16 at 11:27 PM.
-
2013-01-17, 03:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Since True Dragons got brought up (and gets brought up a bit, and thus should be covered), I'll say that by RAW a True Dragon is any dragon with 12 age categories (Wyrmling to Great Wyrm) that gets stronger as it gets older (Draconomicon sidebar). I think it's pretty clear that Kobolds in Races of the Dragon were supposed to count as True Dragons if they took Dragonwrought based on that book... they just didn't realize what would happen if you did that. So I'd add in the following rules relevant to Kobold shenanigans:
1) No creature may ever take a level in a class without having taken all the earlier levels in that class (applies to Dragonblood Sorcerer and Dragonblood Cleric substitutions... currently because True Dragons bypass all prerequisites for taking any class or feat that requires being Dragonblooded, you can just take Dragonblood Cleric 9 as your first Cleric level, which grants +6 BAB and huge saves (but not improved casting).
2) Sovereign Archetypes may only be taken by True Dragons with dragon HD (Kobolds don't have those, so this solves that particular issue).
3) The Advanced Dragons rules ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monst...onAdvanced.htm ) only apply to racial hit dice gained, not class hit dice. This again removes Kobolds from those rules, in addition to getting rid of any "Kobolds who gain class levels also gain huge dragon bonuses" issues.
There. Now Dragonwrought Kobolds can still officially be True Dragons and thus feel very important, and yet don't get the really crazy powers that they were almost certainly never intended to have. But it's still a strong feat (gain various Dragon racial attributes, +3 to all mental stats, take Improved Dragon Wings without needing the prerequisite Dragon Wings feat). It's just not stupidly powerful anymore.
JaronK
-
2013-01-17, 03:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Or in fitting with the thread, you can simply read "Advances through age category" in the MM, as requiring "Advancement: By age category" for true dragons preventing Kobolds from being true dragons entirely, and curtailing every single problem relating to them being dragons without banning the book, the feat, and the race.
-
2013-01-17, 04:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The problem there is that in Races of the Dragon it's actually pretty clear that Dragonwrought really was supposed to make them True Dragons. All the mythology described in that book hints at it. So making them not count just screws that up and thus isn't common sense.
Also, your interpretation leads to logical impossibilities, because what Draconomicon actually says is that dragons that get more powerful by aging are True Dragons, while dragons that don't have age categories are not. Kobolds do get more powerful simply by aging and have age categories, so the ruling you suggest would make them both True and not True at the same time.
Furthermore, just denying Kobolds those oddball rules doesn't fix the problem that still exists for standard True Dragons... a Wyrmling Steel Dragon could still take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 as their first level for the huge BAB and save boost, while a Great Wyrm dragon who takes three levels in any class still gains a virtual age category for it.
The suggestions I made don't create logical impossibilities and preserve the intent of the feat while getting rid of the silly bits for both Kobolds and other True Dragons... which *is* common sense.
JaronK
-
2013-01-17, 05:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I would argue that Kobolds do not get more powerful with age, aging lowers physical stats while increasing mental stats, true dragons see an increase to all stats, and no decreases.
I think a delineation based on advancement methods (Dragons advance by hitdice, kobolds advance by character class), or the presence of actual Dragon Hitdice would be more appropriate.
I would also dispute that any dragon steel or otherwise qualifies for dragonblood substitution levels. First off, the requirement is a Dragonblood supbtype, something a dragon lacks. Second the requirement levels of Sorcerer. Casting as a sorcerer of X is not the same thing as being a sorcerer of X level
To take a dragonblood sorcerer substitution level, a character must have the dragonblood subtype and be about to take his 1st, 4th, or 7th level of sorcerer.
Finally the idea that you gain the listed bonus is silly, its a substitution level, you take it instead of the listed level. It replaces the listed level from its class, its not a new class. So sorc substitution 7;
7th +3 +2 +2 +5
7th +3 +2 +2 +5
Dragons also do not gain virtual age catagories for levels in other classes, the Draconomicon has a lengthy (too lengthy to copy here) example on the dragons as PC's section. Dragons advance by Dragon HD and age, you are simply required to spend levels to keep up with your Dragons age. Taking levels in another class merely increases your overall ECL.
Finally the ELH (and SRD) say that dragons gain virtual age categories for every three hitdice, but only after they've achieved Great Wyrm Status. Again that keyword, Hitdice. Dragons advance by Hitdice, Dragon HD. They get their own. Taking levels of another class will indeed provide you with hitdice, but the wrong kind. You must take the Monstrous HD to get the benefit of them. Age Category advancements are a trait of Dragon HD only.Last edited by TypoNinja; 2013-01-17 at 05:19 AM.
A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"
-
2013-01-17, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The Dragonwrought feat explicitly changes that for Kobolds. They don't lower their physical stats. They only raise their mental ones. That's in Races of the Dragon in the Kobold aging table. So, yes, they do get more powerful as they age (there's even a section of the DMG that straight up says "more powerful characters" are characters with higher stats).
I think a delineation based on advancement methods (Dragons advance by hitdice, kobolds advance by character class), or the presence of actual Dragon Hitdice would be more appropriate.
I would also dispute that any dragon steel or otherwise qualifies for dragonblood substitution levels. First off, the requirement is a Dragonblood supbtype, something a dragon lacks. Second the requirement levels of Sorcerer. Casting as a sorcerer of X is not the same thing as being a sorcerer of X level
And it's not that True Dragons have Sorcerer levels, it's that Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 requires Sorcerer 6 and being Dragonblooded, but a True Dragon gets to ignore the Sorcerer 6 part of the requirement because he's a True Dragon and Dragonblooded was one of the requirements.
As a Dragon you have no levels of Sorcerer, or any other class, you have dragon HD. As a Dragon you lack the dragonblood subtype.
Finally the idea that you gain the listed bonus is silly, its a substitution level, you take it instead of the listed level. It replaces the listed level from its class, its not a new class. So sorc substitution 7;
Any True Dragon can always take anything (feat, class level, etc) that requires the Dragonblood subtype, ignoring all prerequisites... they automatically qualify. Taking Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 requires being Sorcerer 6 and being Dragonblooded. Since True Dragons ignore the normal prerequisites, they can just take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 despite never having taken any other Sorcerer levels. Now, because your Sorcerer casting is based on the number of Sorcerer levels you have, this only gives them the usual one level increase in Sorcerer casting, so it's not insane. But because BAB and saves are a lookup table, your BAB and saves are suddenly set to the value that a Sorcerer 7 would normally have... namely +3 BAB, +5 Wil, +2 For, +2 Ref. See how that worked?
Finally the ELH (and SRD) say that dragons gain virtual age categories for every three hitdice, but only after they've achieved Great Wyrm Status. Again that keyword, Hitdice. Dragons advance by Hitdice, Dragon HD. They get their own. Taking levels of another class will indeed provide you with hitdice, but the wrong kind. You must take the Monstrous HD to get the benefit of them. Age Category advancements are a trait of Dragon HD only.
JaronK
-
2013-01-17, 05:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I'd missed the change to kobolds, so fine you've got me on that one, however..
Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes,
racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require
the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that
have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale,
kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the
dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.
Dragons count as Dragonblooded, if they ever need to, which is obvious because Dragonblooded it self is about being treated as a Dragon.
Notice how gaining the Dragon Type, loses you the Dragonblood Subtype? Its a clear indication the two are redundant, One you actually are a Dragon, the other you count as a Dragon. This rule is simply providing the equivalency between being a dragon and being dragonblooded.
It also still doesn't address the fact that substitution levels are not a PrC. You don't just "pick up" substitution levels. They replace the listed level in a core class. Its right there in the name. Substitution.
I feel like you totally missed my point on HD as well, but, since I really don't have anything more I can add to that, I'll just let it stand.A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"
-
2013-01-17, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Thanks to Thormag for my Legion avatar.
Current Characters:
Lily Nightingale, a.k.a. Sparrow, in V for Victory (OoC)
-
2013-01-17, 06:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The issue is that it's "Dragons automatically qualify" not "the Dragon type also counts as dragonblooded for purposes of qualifying for" as it should read. Yes, it's very likely that's what they intended (hence changing the common sense reading).
With that said, it makes sense that Dragons might be able to take Improved Dragon Wings without the prerequisite feat, so maybe this is what they meant. There's no other abuse for the auto qualification thing except the substitution levels.
It also still doesn't address the fact that substitution levels are not a PrC. You don't just "pick up" substitution levels. They replace the listed level in a core class. Its right there in the name. Substitution.
I feel like you totally missed my point on HD as well, but, since I really don't have anything more I can add to that, I'll just let it stand.
JaronK
-
2013-01-17, 06:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Does it, anywhere in the book, state anything factual about the status of kobold's dragonness? Because that's also the book that lists all true dragons at the time of it's printing, Dragonwrought Kobolds don't appear on this list. So no, they weren't.
Also, your interpretation leads to logical impossibilities, because what Draconomicon actually says is that dragons that get more powerful by aging are True Dragons, while dragons that don't have age categories are not. Kobolds do get more powerful simply by aging and have age categories, so the ruling you suggest would make them both True and not True at the same time.
More (also additional, further, and greater for context)
Powerful
In what way do Kobolds, through the process of growing, accumulate power?
They gain some adjustments to mental stats and don't suffer any penalties to physical stats right?
In what way do True Dragons, through the process of growing, accumulate power?
They gain additional HD, increasing size, stats, spellcasting prowress, feats, and essentially everything else related to a common sense reading of the statement "Grow more powerful with age" within the context of the rules.
So nope, still don't qualify.
Furthermore, just denying Kobolds those oddball rules doesn't fix the problem that still exists for standard True Dragons... a Wyrmling Steel Dragon could still take Dragonblood Sorcerer 7 as their first level for the huge BAB and save boost, while a Great Wyrm dragon who takes three levels in any class still gains a virtual age category for it.
The suggestions I made don't create logical impossibilities and preserve the intent of the feat while getting rid of the silly bits for both Kobolds and other True Dragons... which *is* common sense.
-
2013-01-17, 07:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I feel like these are exceptionally flimsy attempts at interpreting the rules to the most outrageous means possible, even by the extremely liberal TO standards of these boards.
I'm gonna paste the entire section of the sidebar, hopefully its not considered too much, but I think the context is important in this case.
DRAGONBLOOD SUBTYPE
If a race possesses the dragonblood subtype, it has a strong
affinity to dragons—which means that spells, effects, powers,
and abilities that affect or target dragons also affect it. The subtype
qualifies a creature to use magic items normally only usable
by dragons, and qualifies the creature to take feats that have the
subtype as a prerequisite. The dragonblood subtype also makes
creatures subject to harmful effects that affect dragons.
The dragonblood subtype does not confer the dragon type
or any traits associated with that type. For instance, it does not
give a creature frightful presence.
Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes,
racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require
the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that
have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale,
kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the
dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.
Even if a dragon automatically qualifies, under this extremely shady interpenetration of a sidebar, he still can't just take a substitution level. I hate resorting to dictionaries, but it this case it seems required.
Noun
The action of replacing someone or something with another person or thing.
Of course it means racial hit die, again take the rules in context. HD to virtual age catagories for Epic Dragons is right there in the Advanced Dragons section, not advanced constructions or advanced undead.
Dragon MM entries indicate they advance by HD, when you see that entry do you think "well, lets give him outsider HD instead but still claim the bonuses from Dragon HD."?
When a monster is advanced by HD, he's advanced by his racial HD, your magical beast gets more magical beast HD, not construct HD, undead advance by undead HD, not animal HD. Dragons advance by Dragon HD, its right there in the name. Increasing age categories is a benefit of Dragon HD, no other monstrous HD grants that benefit.
Furthermore, the Epic rules for advancing dragons specifically references it as an expansion for the rules on HD advancement from the MM, and those rules do show that mosters advance by their own hitdice.A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"
-
2013-01-17, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
See, what you're doing there is applying common sense to the rules. But you're assuming the rules will be read in the common sense way, while I believe the very point of this thread is to write down what the common sense rules should say so that they're always interpreted in the common sense way.
Otherwise there's no point in this thread... for each rule, you could just say "common sense dictates people will read this rule right, so we don't need to do anything."
To be clear, every interpretation I've stated here (except some of the technical bits about why Kobolds count as True Dragons) is something I've heard from multiple other players.
Originally Posted by Zeful
In what way do Kobolds, through the process of growing, accumulate power?
Seriously, it's not that hard to fix the issue. You just explicitly state that the automatically qualify language doesn't let you take Dragonblood substitution levels without taking the earlier levels, and you state that Sovereign Archetypes only apply to True Dragons with Dragon racial hit dice. Problem solved. It's really not that hard.
JaronK