"Wait again, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

[JaronK]

Something I noticed when writing this scenario: all bows have the same range, unless I am mistaken. While this doesn't matter much for small and medium (the most common PC types to consider) having a gargantuan longbow and a diminutive longbow have the same range is pretty amusing.

This is actually a change from 3.0, so evidently it was intentional. Arms and Equipment Guide actually has tables for range of weapons based on their size. Back in the day, a gargantuan longbow would have a lot bigger range.

While that table's not explicitly ignored in 3.5, it's implicitly gone, because ballistas are huge crossbows and yet have the same range as crossbows.

JaronK

[nedz]

Well feats exist to increase the 30' range
Crossbow Sniper (PH2 p77) — sets the range to 60'
Ranged Skirmisher (DR346 p87) — sets the range to 60' — Skirmish ony
and then there's the OBI capstone.

And you can argue that Far Shot increases the range by 50%

[The Viscount]

BTW, I forgot to reply to your earlier comment about touch-range buffs on incorporeal undead; pretty sure having your hand charged with a spell makes you, effectively, a magic weapon for purposes of attacking incorporeal creatures, so you have a 50% chance of getting it the first try, and it's quite possible the minion could be instructed to let you auto-hit on miss chance as well as AC.

Oh, I didn't know touch spells counted as magic weapons for that. It still means that death master has to use up a buff spells just to use one of his weird class abilities on his minion.

[TuggyNE]

Chain devils are immune to cold.
Ice devils aren't.

[Kazyan]

{scrubbed}

[nedz]

Chain devils are immune to cold.
Ice devils aren't.

Nice one.

Ice Devils are immune to Fire though — so maybe that's a bit of Gygaxian design from WotC here ?

[TuggyNE]

Nice one.

Ice Devils are immune to Fire though — so maybe that's a bit of Gygaxian design from WotC here ?

Could be. Wouldn't surprise me all that much, in fact.

Also, somehow forgot to mention this was actually noted by my friend artofregicide.

[Venger]

Ice Devils are immune to Fire though — so maybe that's a bit of Gygaxian design from WotC here ?

while that's technically true, all devils are immune to fire, not just ice devils. as far as rationale goes, you're probably right.

[nedz]

while that's technically true, all devils are immune to fire, not just ice devils. as far as rationale goes, you're probably right.

Actually the SRD says most Devils — and Chain Devils aren't.

[Venger]

Actually the SRD says most Devils — and Chain Devils aren't.

whoops! my bad

[Amidus Drexel]

Actually the SRD says most Devils — and Chain Devils aren't.

That's a baatezu trait, right?

[The Viscount]

It is indeed, along with see in darkness.

Edit: Hey, found another one. A character does not need to use a shield to gain the benefit of the Knight's Shield Block ability.

[Pickford]

It is indeed, along with see in darkness.

Edit: Hey, found another one. A character does not need to use a shield to gain the benefit of the Knight's Shield Block ability.

You need to 'have' a shield bonus though as the language says it increases. (As opposed to: You gain a +1 shield bonus, this stacks with any other shield bonus.)

So...you could have a spell providing a shield bonus...

Edit:

I'm refering to the big blocks of text with a header of WEAPONS that follows the table. Not to the table. So please drop the insults.

What, did you expect them to title the whole section "Things you attack with"?

Do me a favor and turn 200 pages, read the glossary definitions of unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes and then feel sheepish.

[mattie_p]

My goodness, pickford, are you still trying to win the discussion on unarmed strikes? Please open a new thread, we will all be happy to endlessly debate that particular dysfunction. This thread is for no single dysfunction.

[Pickford]

My goodness, pickford, are you still trying to win the discussion on unarmed strikes? Please open a new thread, we will all be happy to endlessly debate that particular dysfunction. This thread is for no single dysfunction.

If someone didn't response with misinformation I wouldn't have to set the record straight. So yeah, it's easily dropped.

[The Viscount]

You need to 'have' a shield bonus though as the language says it increases. (As opposed to: You gain a +1 shield bonus, this stacks with any other shield bonus.)

So...you could have a spell providing a shield bonus...

I suspected something like this might be the rule, but I'm not sure. Are you certain you cannot simply say it "increases" from 0? Or is a character without a shield assumed to have a shield bonus of "-"?

Credit where credit is due, this thread brought up the fact that even Big T is limited to a 5 foot step as a free action, which for him is moving 1/6th his space, equivalent to a medium creature moving 10 inches.

[TuggyNE]

If someone didn't response with misinformation I wouldn't have to set the record straight. So yeah, it's easily dropped.

I feel this comic is relevant, as so often.

But yeah, open a new thread and respond to all the misinformation in one spot there, OK?

[noparlpf]

I feel this comic is relevant, as so often.

But yeah, open a new thread and respond to all the misinformation in one spot there, OK?

I was going to post that! But then I was too lazy.

Pickford, the "misinformation" you're talking about is actually just verbatim rules from the PHB/SRD. You seem to be having trouble with the idea that a rulebook can contradict itself, because it shouldn't, but...WotC.

[mattie_p]

Pickford, the "misinformation" you're talking about is actually just verbatim rules from the PHB/SRD. You seem to be having trouble with the idea that a rulebook can contradict itself, because it shouldn't, but...WotC.

No!

Pickford needs to open a new thread to discuss this. No more in this one! Don't open this can of worms again.

[The Viscount]

Well said. Perhaps we can discuss shield block a little. I am unsure as to whether one actually needs the shield to gain the bonus.

Another one that's more some error than a dysfunction. In Drow of the Underdark, there are several class features for Drow taking base classes. They forgot to mention that you have to be Drow to use the ACFs, though they certainly talk about it in flavor text.

[TuggyNE]

This one came up in the Simple Q&A thread, and I don't think it was mentioned earlier:

While excluding exotic shields from shields obviously is the intention of the rules, there is no actual rule saying that exotic shields are not a subset of shields, unless the description of the individual item actually says so.

Look at the tower shield. It obviously is a shield and characters only do not become proficient with it, because for some classes it is explicitly excluded from the rest of shields. Exotic shields are not generally excluded.

This is, obviously, a Type I (minor common sense required) error, but it's still interesting.

[The Viscount]

Here's a really confusing one. Shade Hunter from Champions of Ruin is literally impossible to enter. Why? It requires, among many other things, "shades as a favored enemy." Shade is neither a type of creature nor a specific creature name.

[Pickford]

I feel this comic is relevant, as so often.

But yeah, open a new thread and respond to all the misinformation in one spot there, OK?

Funny, I was going to include that.

Ok, if you want another disfunction, according to Curmudgeon you can't make any attacks during a full attack action because:

"Making an attack is a standard action." and you can't take standard actions while using a full-round action.

edit: and just for mattie p's sanity: Unarmed Strikes are made without weapons.

[TypoNinja]

Funny, I was going to include that.

Ok, if you want another disfunction, according to Curmudgeon you can't make any attacks during a full attack action because:

"Making an attack is a standard action." and you can't take standard actions while using a full-round action.

I suggest you go look up the text of the "Full Attack" action on the SRD.

[mattie_p]

edit: and just for mattie p's sanity: Unarmed Strikes are made without weapons.

Natural weapons (and unarmed strikes) are not melee weapons either.

melee weapon
A handheld weapon designed for close combat.

[Zombimode]

Nice one.

Ice Devils are immune to Fire though — so maybe that's a bit of Gygaxian design from WotC here ?

No. At least the 2nd ed Gelugon (thats an Ice Devil for you younglings) was explicitly not immune to fire, but had cold immunity instead. So it is a WotC error.

[Taelas]

You do realize the PHB defines "Unarmed Strike" as a weapon, right? It's right there on page 116, table 7-5, "Weapons." It's next to "Gauntlet." I don't see why you're trying to do this whole argument that unarmed strikes aren't weapons when they're clearly listed in the weapons section.

So yes, Monks are not proficient. Untrained humanoids are... if you could somehow have a human with just a humanoid HD, you'd be proficient (since they get all simple weapons). But humanoid weapon proficiencies say that they get simple weapons unless they have class levels, in which case they get class proficiency. Monks are a class, and their proficiencies don't include Unarmed Strike. Thus, they are not proficient in unarmed strike. It's quite straight forward.

JaronK

No, it does not.

Read the glossary, which defines Unarmed Strike as an attack without a weapon.

That table is what determines your proficiencies (simple, martial, exotic). There is no other source for that. So actually, in terms if this particular discussion, that table is the only source. Your glossary source says nothing about proficiency.

JaronK

Proficiency with unarmed strikes does not exist. Instead, when attacking unarmed, you give up certain benefits of weapons, unless you are trained to counteract those.

Monks may not be proficient with unarmed strikes, but since there is no penalty defined for not being proficient with them, it does not mean a damn thing. Penalties for non-proficiency is defined in terms of weapons, which unarmed strikes are not.

So, unarmed strike works like a weapon, except for two things (related to attacks of opportunity). For other things (like proficiencies), it therefor works like a weapon. That would explain why unarmed strikes are listed as simple weapons in the weapons table... for purposes of everything in that table (including proficiencies) they're weapons.

JaronK

The section you quoted does not state the other ways in which unarmed strikes are different from weapons, so clearly it is incomplete (for instance, unarmed strikes do not deal lethal damage unless you have a feat or are a monk).

The entry under "Weapons" call out in what manner unarmed strike acts as a weapon. If it were a weapon, IT WOULD NOT NEED TO DO THIS. The exception proves the rule; since it calls out an exception, there must be a rule to which that exception applies.

It's listed under "Simple Weapons." From the SRD:



Then, right under that:



See? They straight up tell you proficiencies apply, then show you unarmed strike and tell you the proficiency that applies. It's incredibly straight forward.

JaronK

You are correct in that Unarmed Strike is listed as a weapon with which you get proficiency.

Where you go wrong is that there is no clause for non-proficiency with an unarmed strike. It is defined as not being a weapon, and there is no table to refer to for non-proficiency. In other words, Simple Weapon Proficiency may make you proficient with Unarmed Strikes, it just doesn't mean anything, as there are no penalties associated with being non-proficient with an unarmed strike.

Really, it is straight forward, but it means precisely the opposite of what you think it does.

[mattie_p]

edit: and just for mattie p's sanity: Unarmed Strikes are made without weapons.

Read the glossary, which defines Unarmed Strike as an attack without a weapon.

New thread is up for the unarmed strike discussion. Thanks in advance for moving the discussion there.

[Flickerdart]

Here's a really confusing one. Shade Hunter from Champions of Ruin is literally impossible to enter. Why? It requires, among many other things, "shades as a favored enemy." Shade is neither a type of creature nor a specific creature name.

Clearly, the Ranger looks like this:

[nedz]

Here's a really confusing one. Shade Hunter from Champions of Ruin is literally impossible to enter. Why? It requires, among many other things, "shades as a favoured enemy." Shade is neither a type of creature nor a specific creature name.

Obviously this is a Lampshade.