Results 151 to 180 of 534
-
2012-04-24, 12:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
-
2012-04-24, 12:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
-
2012-04-24, 12:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
"Unconscious creatures automatically get no save against any spell that allows a save"
If it's RAW- who thinks it needs changing?Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2012-04-24, 01:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
-
2012-04-24, 01:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
This claim is not correct. In fact, the RAW explicitly explain unconscious by linking to helpless and the always willing clause applies only to spells that only affect willing targets. Repeating the opposite over and over again does not make it right.
Also, this is about RAI and there's a solution (rule 15). You're free to vote against it if you wish to keep ignoring the evidence.
IMO, you're only fighting this because your tricks rely on reading it differently (ignoring the paragraph's first sentence). Rule 15 will reduce mindrape abuse.
Tippy's "trick" in this case is focusing your attention to the bolded part of the text he cited above. The full text is one paragraph and reads:
Originally Posted by SRD
It is obvious that the first part is the introduction to the rest of the paragraph/section. Only by ignoring the first sentence and arbitrarily taking out a sentence from the paragraph can the meaning be applied to all spells. Unfortunately, game designers also have to use puncutuation marks. To protect against Tippy, they'd need to make endless sentences, or he just takes out whichever part he likes to use and neglects the rest of a section.Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 01:14 PM.
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!
-
2012-04-24, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Magic vestment, a core spell in the PHB, states that it can give normal clothing can be given an enhancement bonus to armor.
It seems really weird to me that such a basic spell can perform this effect, but no magic item ever printed can replicate it.
It seems to me like you should be able to, but barring that, couldn't you just find some way to make magic vestment permanent or give it an obscenely long duration? DMM persist for example?
-
2012-04-24, 01:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
A willing creature is anyone that has 1) chosen to give up their save or 2) is unconcious.
A spell that restricts you to willing only creatures only works if the creature is willing (thus has either chosen to give up their save or is unconscious).
Willing is basically a flag on the creature targeted, if it's set to 'yes' then the creature get's no save. If it's set to 'no' then the creature gets a save (or the spell automatically doesn't work).
That flag only gets set to yes if the creature chooses to make it so or is unconscious.
This is RAW.
-
2012-04-24, 01:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...m#aimingASpell
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
The above is RAW.
It says nothing about saving throws, only about whether you can be a target at all. If you are conscious, you are a living (or undead, or constructed, or...) creature, and can choose whether or not you are willing for any given spell. If you are unconscious, you are automatically considered a willing target where it matters.
The saving throw section does not indicate anything to the effect that a willing target has to forego their saving throw. You can be a "willing target" and still roll your saving throw.
So let's look at some of the example spells in the light of RAW...
dimension door: Only affects willing (including unconscious) targets. Only magical objects and attended objects can receive a saving throw. Unconscious characters by RAW don't have that option. There is a corner case here of an unconscious character who has some magical equipment.
charm person: Affects one creature, willing or not, and a save applies. Being unconscious affects this spell in no way at all.
dominate person/monster: Same as charm person.
poison, destruction, disintegrate: Also unaffected by being unconscious as per RAW.
water breathing: Presumably cast by tritons to kidnap an unconscious PC from the beach party fight. It affects a living creature, whether willing or not, but he gets a save, which he can choose to either roll or automatically fail, independently of whether or not he is a "willing target".
I'm not sure what the solution here is anymore. Being a willing target isn't the deal breaker some made it out to be. Otoh, it allows some weird tactics while denying some obvious ones.
However, I did notice something weird... If you are unconscious or otherwise helpless, you can still attempt a Reflex saving throw, albeit with the -5 penalty for having zero dexterity.
Rule xxx: Dodging While Asleep
If you are helpless, you automatically fail any Reflex saving throw.
-
2012-04-24, 01:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Page 177 of the PHB says a willing creature can also lower any "special resistances" they have to a spell.
If you rule that any unconscious creature also forgoes their save, wouldn't they also count as lowering their resistances? Thus, wouldn't mind blank or any other form of spell resistance or immunity from a spell, item, class, or race not function while a character is unconscious?
I wonder how far that extends, RAW or RAI. Could you, for example, burn an unwilling or unconscious fire elemental to death with fire ball?
-
2012-04-24, 01:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
-
2012-04-24, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Gender
-
2012-04-24, 01:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
-
2012-04-24, 01:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
Nope. RAW disagrees. A willing creature can choose to give up their saving throw, but they certainly aren't required to do so.
-
2012-04-24, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
And rule 15 saves lives.
Allowing unconscious creatures saves will lead to less PC deaths, which is a good thing (and a smaller number of mindrapes, as well, which is a good thing).Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 01:45 PM.
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!
-
2012-04-24, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
-
2012-04-24, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
In light of the above RAW, I'd now like to state a houserule I'm considering...
An unconscious character is by default considered an unwilling target for any and all spells. Exception: you are always considered a willing target for cure/inflict/repair spells when used to restore hit points.
Any character can choose a number of spells or spell groups equal to his Intelligence bonus (if any, minimum one). These groups can be as tight as a single spell ("dimension door"), or as loose as a single school ("abjurations", subschool ("teleportation spells"), descriptor type ("mind-influencing"), caster type ("clerics"), or spell level ("level one"). You cannot choose "all spells cast by Fred", since you have no way of knowing it was Fred who cast the spell while you are unconscious.
You can change these chosen spell groups first thing in the morning after you wake up. Mostly, players will pick them once and leave them alone.
For those spells or spell groups you have picked, you are considered a willing target while unconscious, regardless of who the caster was. In effect, while conscious you get to choose normally whether you are willing or not. When you are unconscious, you follow your pre-selected decisions.Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-24 at 01:54 PM.
-
2012-04-24, 01:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Unarmed Strike is a special case.
See, anything attacking with a natural weapon (claw, teeth, tentacles, whatever) is attacking with a weapon. All creatures are proficient with their natural weapons.
Humanoids making an unarmed attack provoke an AoO (mainly cause you have to get closer to a dude to punch him then you do to stab him), and if you really wanna be a stickler about it, take another -4 penalty to the attack roll. Technically, this is for using a weapon you aren't proficient in, but you could also think of it as "it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".
Monks get improved unarmed strike at first level, listing unarmed strike as a weapon proficiency is confusing and redundant.
I do understand the intent of the RACSD, but in this case, i actually think it's redundant and makes the rules even more confusing. Please, count my vote for Against rule 6.Last edited by Onikani; 2012-04-24 at 02:16 PM.
-
2012-04-24, 01:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)
Am I seeing it right: there are two points to the debate:
a) Is the helpless creature hindered in making the save?
and
b) can a unconscious creature still chose not to save against things she wants to be affected by?
with b2) where is the border? When an disguised badguy tries to dimension door unconscious you 400ft upwards, do you know the teleportation target and can choose to resist or do you not? This will probably reveal a lot of spells as sloppy written. I mean, this is not even an issue of being unconscious or not.
I think it is needed to talk about the two points seperately. Even if you do not agree with malacheis opinion on a), perhaps you could opine on b)?
and b2) probably is a problem all on its own: when am I willing? and how much do I know about a spell i do not cast?
Tippy, what would, if a) was contrary to your position be "no"
your position on b) ?
-
2012-04-24, 01:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Edmonton, Canada
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
If you'd left it here, I'd be in full support of this houserule. I think that I understand what you are trying to accomplish with the rest of the houserule, but the additional book-keeping and the contra-intuitiveness (how does an unconscious Thog know when he's being targeted by an Abjuration?) of the rest make it less palatable for me.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut
-
2012-04-24, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
"it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".
you have a better lever and thus more kynetic power. It is quite easy to give someone a concussion even through a helmet.
There is a reason for the predominance of wrestling techniques in historic fencing books for the fully armored fight.
Punch him, throw him, lock his arm, open his visor, stabbytimes.
-
2012-04-24, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-24 at 02:18 PM.
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!
-
2012-04-24, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Helpless creatures aren't hindered in making a save, unconscious creatures aren't either. If you are unconscious you forgo your save. Assuming that what you meant was that unconscious creatures don't forgo their saves, then I would make willing only spells fail and force saves on even helpful spells.
You either save vs. everything (regardless of whether it's helpful or not), or save vs. nothing (regardless of whether it's harmful or not). Why in the world should you get a save against the BBEG's teleport but not have to save against your allies teleport?
-
2012-04-24, 02:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Originally Posted by Rule 34
The rules in the Magic Item Compendium clearly define the body slot item, and give a list of enchantments appropriate for such a slot.
According the the MIC page 218 the example for body slot consists of armor or robes (clothes make sense here too).
Also, You may only have 1 active magic item in each body slot, so you cannot receive a bonus for both magic armor and robes.
The Rules in MIC (page 218) also detail the slot for Torso, and defines it as shirt, tunic, vests, or vestments. Enchanting an "entire set of clothing" would effectively mean that the PC loses the Torso Slot, since the shirt part of the outfit counts as covers the torso.
Some would argue that a PC could wear 2 shirts, but then you are getting into a situation where 2 items occupy the same slot...
I agree that common sense should dictate that if you can enchant robes, you should be able to enchant any outfit, but this causes a conflict with other clear RAW.
I do not wish to vote for this in it's current form. But will vote for it, if we can fix/clarify some of the wording above.Last edited by Onikani; 2012-04-24 at 02:14 PM.
-
2012-04-24, 02:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Tippy. Now you of all people arguing with common sense? OMG, the paradigm shift... are people going to jump from buildings?
I think the issue is not big:
Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.
Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.
So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) 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!
-
2012-04-24, 02:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I'm not arguing historical accuracy, I'm arguing RAW, and where and how it needs to be clarified/clarified for common sense.
Let's examine your sequence:
Punch him = Attack action with Unarmed Strike
Throw him = Attack Action with Trip or Bullrush
Open his Visor = Outside of the RAW for 3.5 DND, but could probably be represented by a Grapple check, again, an attack action.
Stabbytimes = Attack action (possibly with Called Shot optional rules).
That is a minimum of 4 attack actions, which either means 4 rounds, or 1 round for a PC with a +16 BAB. This means a PC at the very minimum of level 16 (and some good rolls!).
Someone could probably make a tactical feat to simulate this, but afaik, no such thing currently exists.
The rules system allow for combat without trying to be 100% historically accurate. Historically, no one could fly, fight dragons, or cast magic missile either. Also, successful Stabbytimes, (as you put it) would ALWAYS result in a death, in D&D, it means a dice roll for damage.
;)
-
2012-04-24, 02:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I use common sense and houserules all the time, I just don't use them in RAW arguments because they have no place.
I think the issue is not big:
Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.
Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.
So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) you ;)
You agree on the above, correct?
My position, which the rules support, is that if you are suffering from the "unconscious" condition then you are automatically willing. In which case you can still be affected by spells with the willing only target descriptor and you automatically forgo your saving throws against any spell cast upon you.
That does not mean that you loose SR or any other immunities, as those take a separate specific action to lower, or that you loose your saves against anything but magic.
-
2012-04-24, 02:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Common sense? Fine, I love common sense.
A scroll, let's say a scroll of ice assassin, gets saving throws. Actually, it gets Fort, Reflex and will saving throws. It is not automatically considered to forego its save.
An object gets to roll a saving throw but an unconscious PC canot roll a saving throw?
I find that unreasonable and unnecessary. It also causes a higher number of PC deaths.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!
-
2012-04-24, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I think I see a root of some of the dissent.
Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
If someone is a willing target in terms of a spell that specifies something for a willing target, do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw? Do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw if the spell does not have a specification for a willing or unwilling target?
-
2012-04-24, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
A willing target is someone who voluntarily foregoes his saving throw, and it is also someone who accepts a willing targets-only spell. It is the same thing.
The only reason there is a category for willing targets regarding spells is because these spells cannot work on hostile creatures. You'll notice that any spells which does work on hostile creatures, but which has harmless effects generally, have a "(harmless)" clause after their saving throw. (Willing targets-only spells do not have saving throws. They don't need them!)
So by your logic, if you're unconscious and don't forego your saving throw, you now have to roll saves against heal, since you can't make the decision to voluntarily give it up.
It works the way Tippy describes, and it is not an abuse... this is how the rules are intended to work. Yes, being unconscious sucks.
-
2012-04-24, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The best "common sense" way to fill the 'gap' is to apply the rules uniformly across all hand-based weapons. You can make a slam attack with a claw attack, so what makes a dagger attack different than a claw attack?
And as an example of RAW, read the vampire template's entry in the monster manual. Explicitly calls out that the slam attack may be used as a secondary natural attack with a manufactured weapon(which includes 2-handed weapons)(And humorously, doesn't add it to any of the sample stat-blocks as a secondary attack during a full-attack, even when the primary-manufactured weapon was 1-handed).Avatar by Assassin89
I started my first campaign around a campfire, having pancakes. They were blueberry.
My homebrew(updated 6/17):
SpoilerIn progress:
Prolonged Spell(Fix for Persistent spell)
Weapon Training(replaces Weapon Focus chain)
Shelved:
Ascendant Feats.[New content!]
Finished:
Belts of potionade