Results 31 to 60 of 534
-
2012-04-20, 03:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Verona
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - No. It makes sense, but I don't see it as something obvious.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Eh, not really.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No.
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - No. Again, it makes perfect sense, but it's more of a trivial house rule than an interpretation.
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
-
2012-04-20, 03:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
-
2012-04-20, 04:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Just to keep things tidied up, and because I think it's a reasonable measure, here's a minor amendment to the rules.
Should a proposed rule reach the anti-thesis of approved (Only 20% for), it will be purged.
JadePhoenix, I'd appreciate your reasoning behind those opinions.
Darrin, both of your proposed clarifications to charging while mounted and ride-bys make sense to me. I've added, commented, and named them (hope you're ok with the rule names I used).
Ashtagon, I'm not sure but what the current wording accomplishes the same thing on Rule 4...but your wording is clearer. As the result is the same, I'll keep the previous votes as-is, and adopt/adapt the wording you provided.
I'd ask that the issue of simple weapons be taken up as a separate issue...feel free to propose it.
Telonius, I completely agree...but please note that the number has shifted to #013.
Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...
It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?
Keld Denar...in as rule #014
prufock, can you give me a page # on that? If so, I'll remove it for already being an established rule.
Please recheck numbers, since we've gotten some drift.Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?
-
2012-04-20, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
-
2012-04-20, 04:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Yes
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - After all metamagic is applied, the spell level should not be less than the original level of the spell. I do not agree with outright restricting it to certain metamagic.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Yes
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Abstain
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Yes
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Yes
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yes
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Abstain
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - Yes, although it must take up a slot that is not otherwise filled by something else (IE, you can't have a robe over armor and benefit from both, at least stat-wise)
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - I would adjust this to say that a prestige class's prerequisites and class features can never prevent you from taking advantage of any other feature of the class, nor prevent you from advancing in it (I'm specifically thinking of Ur-Priest, who has to not be able to cast divine spells in order to advance in the class, but by RAW this means he cannot cast his own spells).
EDIT: Also, I agree with the "I'm not left-handed" one.Last edited by Namfuak; 2012-04-20 at 04:13 PM.
-
2012-04-20, 04:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
4 - additional rewrite:
Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.
10 - Agree
11 - Agree
12 - Agree
13 - Agree
14 - Agree
-
2012-04-20, 04:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped
It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:
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 rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.
Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.
Thus, I propose rule 15:
Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.Last edited by Malachei; 2012-04-20 at 04:24 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!
-
2012-04-20, 04:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I agree with this so long as there is some penalty to will saves while someone is unconscious. Maybe a -4 penalty?
EDIT: In hindsight, I agree with Malachei that the penalty probably falls under a different purview in terms of ruling than his interpretation, so if it is to be included it should probably at the very least be separated in the main post.Last edited by Namfuak; 2012-04-20 at 04:39 PM.
-
2012-04-20, 04:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- R'lyeh
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I support rules 3 and 8 and a -4 penalty in rule 15.
Last edited by Howler Dagger; 2012-04-20 at 04:35 PM.
Illud quod aeternitatem iacere potest non mortuus est, ac dis peregrinis etiam mors moriatur.
D&D 3.5≠Pathfinder
Typhon by Kaptainkrutch. Thanks to TylerB7 for the latin
-
2012-04-20, 04:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.
EDIT:
A commentary on clarification vs. changes:
This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?
My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".
Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.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!
-
2012-04-20, 05:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Approve001 (Drowning)
004 (SUS & Monks)
005 (Dead)
006 (Unarmed Strikes), so long as herbivorous animals keep their "all natural weapons counted as secondary", which admittedly has nothing to do with proficiency.
007 (Trample) Note, however, that wolves don't have an appropriate attack, which makes the name as given in the post a bit of a misnomer.
013 (Dragon Disciple) Want to make a call on what happens when you lose prerequisites as well?
Conditional012 (Clothing as armor) MIC page 234 allows deflection, armor, and natural armor bonuses in the body slot at normal price anyway. I say no unless you're going to allow anything with an armor bonus to get special abilities like Soulfire or whatever; I don't see a reason for clothing to be singled out from Bracers of Armor in this respect.
014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.
Disapprove003 (Legacy & Bloodline Levels) Eh, as it stands, it's a bit far-reaching. I might support No prestige class with fewer than 10 levels may have its class features advanced beyond its maximum level, however, since that fits in nicely with the epic rules and doesn't cause problems with 10-level classes that don't have RAW epic advancement.
008 (Draconic Sorcerers), unless you can find one of these feats that requires sorcerer levels and doesn't require burning an arcane spell. Not inclined to give wizards access to those even if they are dragontouched.
010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.
Neutral002 (Thesis) I'm inclined to believe behavior on the reducers is as intended. If this is an exploit, I've never seen it used in a game. I'm not going to pass a judgment on it quite yet, though. EDIT > I would absolutely support errata that made it so that no spell could be reduced below its original level, or even that allowed only one metamagic to apply a net -1. <
011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.
Ideas for ConsiderationI'm not going to give these "official" numbers, because I'm not sure what ones you even want to consider.
S1 Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)
S2 Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).
S3 If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, 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.
S4 The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).
And, of course, the ever-dividing Aptitude:
S5a The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)
S5b The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)Last edited by Siosilvar; 2012-04-20 at 05:13 PM.
ze/zir | she/her
Omnia Vincit Amor
-
2012-04-20, 05:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed. It make sense that you could reduce the level of a spell by apllying a metamagic feat to it.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - I would tend to agree but I'm not sure it belong in this thread.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - It was apparently removed.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 012: Anything Can Be Armour - Agreed
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed - AgreedLatest homebrew: The Avatars of Magic, powerful monster each dedicated to ne school of magic.
My homebrewer's Extended Signature
My character :
Spoiler
Mirar, Bizarre human Focused Conjurer/Master specialist (summoning specialist)
Xilef, shifter Druid 8//Barbarian 5/Weretouched master 3
Other Character.
-
2012-04-20, 05:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?
Suggested Fix
At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.
*Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.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...
-
2012-04-20, 05:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.
-
2012-04-20, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
-
2012-04-20, 05:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I do need to point out something. There already is a feat that does what rule 8 proposes. Dragontouched, page 18 of dragon magic. Go read it up. What rule 8 does is it means that if you already HAVE the dragonblood subtype, then you don't need to burn a feat for something you already have.
Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar
Ponytar by Dirtytabs
Originally Posted by DudeWhyAreAllTheNamesTaken(Imgur)
-
2012-04-20, 06:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
You'd think so but no they do not. The relevant text is in the armor proficiency feats.
from the SRD
Armor Proficiency (Light) [General] Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Whats more specific, a feat, the armor rules, or type descriptions because this also means all creatures are proficient with light armor because all creatures are characters even if only NPCs. This also goes for simple weapon proficiency.
-
2012-04-20, 06:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
-
2012-04-20, 06:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
No, see, this is the part I don't get. The TWFing rules supercede the Monk rules, IMO. The rules in the Monk class description only deal with your normal attack routines and you don't have an offhand no matter which hand you use. The TWFing rules then give you an offhand UAS, which is subject to all of the benefits and penalties of TWF, including the 1/2 +Str bonus.
-
2012-04-20, 06:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?
Originally Posted by SRD on Spell Descriptions
Originally Posted by SRD on Saving Throws
Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.Last edited by Emperor Tippy; 2012-04-20 at 06:58 PM.
-
2012-04-20, 07:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I just checked my copy of the PHB. Swim skill, proficiency feats, armor section in equipment; it's there in all three places. d20SRD appears to be missing that text in the proficiency feats, which is strange. It's there in the other two, and I'm inclined to value the description of armor check penalties and the skill telling you what modifiers apply over the lack of text in the feats (being that lack of text does not preclude additions by other rules).
I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).Last edited by Siosilvar; 2012-04-20 at 07:33 PM.
ze/zir | she/her
Omnia Vincit Amor
-
2012-04-20, 07:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Ah, I see. Wouldn't the feat just make more sense if the feat (and the Monk's unarmed strike damage) both calculated the number of steps that they increased damage by, which is actually what they do, instead of the "effective levels" of the class that progresses it? Monk's unarmed strike damage progresses by 2 + x/4 rounded down, where x is your level, and Superior Unarmed Strike progresses by 1+ x/4 rounded down. Worded that way, there should be an obvious way to state that your unarmed damage with the Monk increases by an additional step, such as "Monk levels stack with Superior Unarmed Strike for determining bonus damage steps at level 1, but overlap for the purposes of determining damage progression on subsequent levels". Or some other wording that is much, much less stupid. The result is that your Unarmed Strike progression if you have any levels in Monk becomes 3 + x/4 rounded down (which was the purpose of this feat as it was intended). None of this "effective Monk level" nonsense.
In any case, my vote is now yes for 4.
I think a rewording might be required, but I get what I did wrong - I read the ruling as "unless the feature's progression is explicitly made mention of, it doesn't advance", as in "unless a table spells out its epic level progression, it doesn't have one", which means that by default no class features advance unless there's an Epic Progression table, which only exists for SRD classes and prestige classes (meaning that, by default, anything not printed in an SRD-ready book doesn't have an epic level progression). Per my reading, the only base classes that would have an epic level progression at all would be the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Soulknife, and Wilder (since they have tables outlining their epic level progression that include class features), and the rest of the SRD (for epic or psionic feats only).
Assuming that your rule simply refers to the scaling of class abilities that run on a fixed level progression (such as the Marshal's major aura bonus) and so on, as opposed to a blanket ban on everything not spelled out on a table, my vote for 3 becomes yes.
Let it be known, however, that my vote for 12 follows my vote for 9 logically as a no. There is a difference between codpiece of armor +2 and a +2 codpiece, that being that the former actually does use the MIC enhancement guidelines for applying armor, natural armor and deflection bonii to unusual items (which doesn't change per this ruling either way), and the latter applies a new rule which allows you to treat a striped sweater as masterwork, and then enchant it as you would a chain shirt (which is changing), which means that you could have a +5 slick striped sweater of invulnerability, shadow, silent moves, acid resistance and arrow catching (using SRD enhancements only) because your striped sweater is technically now "armor". Congratulations: your striped sweater magically makes you Waldo (and also grants damage reduction and stuff).
It gets even more absurd if you can wear clothing with your armor (and why wouldn't you wear at least undergarments to keep your armor from smelling bad?), because you now have a +5 armor of various enhancements for your actual Armor Class value, and a +1 speedo of various other enhancements for the things you couldn't tack onto your first armor without turning it epic.
I'll vote on the others later.Homebrew!
5e: Expanded Inspiration Uses
Spoiler: 3.5/P Stuff. Warning: OLDBase Classes: Blood Mage
Prestige Classes: Trophy Hunter / Spellshatterer
Miscellany: Permanency Support
Resources:
Alchemical Items/Special Materials List / E6 Magic Item List
-
2012-04-20, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.
If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.
Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.
-
2012-04-20, 07:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.ze/zir | she/her
Omnia Vincit Amor
-
2012-04-20, 08:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Cleveland, OH
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
I'm all for this, so long as we make it explicit in the combat rules that you can change between primary weapons on all your iterative attacks. Right now under Full Attack it says "you can strike with either weapon first", but doesn't specify that you can still switch on subsequent attacks.
Actually, I would like to include Pounce/Headlong Rush/Furious Charge into mounted charges (I like letting melee have nice things), and in fact I'd like to get rid of the "single melee attack" on mounted charges altogether (can't the rider just delay his action until after his mount moves?) but I felt that wasn't the original intent behind the mounted combat rules. But we do need to specify what happens when the rider has Pounce and his mount is charging.
You need to be able to charge past your target, yes... but oddly enough, while this requires the mount to charge, it can't actually get an attack if it continues to move away from the target.
Technically, the Rules Compendium allows you to jump over "obstacles", so you could try Jumping over your target to continue moving in a straight line, but that would look silly. Also, the Rules Compendium never defined what an "obstacle" was, so there's no indication if allies or opponents count as an "obstacle".Handbooks:
Shax's Indispensable Haversack, TWF OffHandbook
Builds:
Archon of Nine, Jellobomber, King of Pong, Lightning Thief
Spells:
Druidzilla, Healbot, Gish
Iron Chef:
-
2012-04-20, 08:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).
When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.
The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.
-
2012-04-20, 08:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
"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."
Nothing in that states that a willing creature doesn't get a save. Forgoing your save is a different section of the text:
"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."
I'm not going to argue RAW any further, and "common sense" could swing either way, so how about we let this thread do what it was designed to do and crowdsource it?ze/zir | she/her
Omnia Vincit Amor
-
2012-04-20, 09:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- Gender
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Seems like the confusion is people looking at "willing" in different way. Strictly looking at syntax, why are "forego a saving throw and willingly (adverb) accept a spell results" and "a willing (adjective) creature" being treated as the same thing? The former implies an action, something a creature has to make a choice to do; how would an unconcious creature make this choice?
-
2012-04-20, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Earth
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
Because you (and most people) misunderstand how targeting works in D&D.
When you cast a spell it asks "Is this target X?" where X is whatever the spell is able to effect, say intelligent undead.
With willing only spells it asks "Is this target willing (unconscious or choosing to forgo their save)?" and if the answer is yes then the spell works
Will all other spells it asks, for example, "Is this target a creature?" If it get's a yes it then asks "Is this target immune to this spell, say [mind affecting]?" if it receives a no then it asks "Is this target willing?" if the answer is no then it gets a save.
A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.
-
2012-04-20, 09:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
The main problem with the unconscious willing target argument is that there is no real way to apply common sense to it, since we don't actually know how mind-affecting spells work (do they change something about the conscious brain, or the unconscious one? If the former, it wouldn't work on unconscious targets since their conscious brain is turned off; if the latter, it would still work since their brain is still functioning, albeit at a lower level). So, it may be better to just drop it for the purposes of this thread.
Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.