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

[Kelb_Panthera]

So now we're waiting until level 15 to planar bind? Sign me up!

Or you're spending a bit of gold on a scroll that you can trivially activate.

[Sith_Happens]

This has definitely been posted before by someone, not sure whether in this thread:

An assassin casts spells just as a bard does.

Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

Proven: D&D assassins work with cat-like tread.

[JaronK]

One annoying one for me: Pounce. Depending on where you read the rules for it, it's either a full attack in addition to the charge attack, or a full attack that happens at the end of a charge move. Seems to be totally random.

JaronK

[ddude987]

One annoying one for me: Pounce. Depending on where you read the rules for it, it's either a full attack in addition to the charge attack, or a full attack that happens at the end of a charge move. Seems to be totally random.

JaronK

I want to make a mounted charger but I could not find an answer to this question. I would think that RAI because feats like spirited charge say "when you are mounted and charging," that you, the player, are charging. Also in the PHB pg 157 it says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance" so that seems to be saying the player is considered charging while on horseback.

[Flickerdart]

I believe the relevant rule is "If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." So your mount is charging, too, and the case could be made that it's the only one that is - while you reap the benefits and the AC penalty, you don't actually count as charging yourself for any other purpose (such as a readied weapon).

[nedz]

Have we covered the Mounted Combat rules in this thread ?
I can't remember.

Maybe they deserve a whole other thread ?
Well this threads almost done anyway — who'd have thought that ?

[Flickerdart]

Who would have thought that 3.5 had 50 pages worth of rule dysfunctions? Just about anybody!

[Dusk Eclipse]

I'm pretty sure we can get another thread going on.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be fair, there were a few repeats and derails but even if it was only 25 pages of actual rules dysfunctions that's still pretty telling.

[Seer_of_Heart]

Well this threads almost done anyway — who'd have thought that ?

Almost done? What do you mean? Is there a hard coded limit of 50 page long threads on this forum?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Almost done? What do you mean? Is there a hard coded limit of 50 page long threads on this forum?

Not actually coded; but yeah, the rules limit threads to 50 pages.

[Flickerdart]

Almost done? What do you mean? Is there a hard coded limit of 50 page long threads on this forum?

Something something long threads something something drain on database resources something something already runs like molasses.

[TypoNinja]

To be fair, there were a few repeats and derails but even if it was only 25 pages of actual rules dysfunctions that's still pretty telling.

I donnou, I think if compiled to a list it'd be significantly shorter. I feel like a good percentage of "dysfunction" require a deliberate interpretation towards the silly.

When I look at something like the Ur-priest (most recently example brought up) yes technically he can't cast half his own spells because his caster level isn't high enough. On the other hand, clearly he's supposed to be able to or they wouldn't have freaking written the class down. They might not come out and say "Ur-Priest can ignore caster level restrictions on spell casting" but by giving him spells at that progression, that says to me they intended that he do so.

[Flickerdart]

Is anyone bored enough to compile a list of actual dysfunctional rules from the thread, and of rules that appear dysfunctional but are actually not (like the Ur-Priest one)? It would help us avoid repeats.

[nedz]

What — something like the Complete Dysfunction ?
It's a big task, maybe we can crowd-source it ?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I donnou, I think if compiled to a list it'd be significantly shorter. I feel like a good percentage of "dysfunction" require a deliberate interpretation towards the silly.

When I look at something like the Ur-priest (most recently example brought up) yes technically he can't cast half his own spells because his caster level isn't high enough. On the other hand, clearly he's supposed to be able to or they wouldn't have freaking written the class down. They might not come out and say "Ur-Priest can ignore caster level restrictions on spell casting" but by giving him spells at that progression, that says to me they intended that he do so.

To the best of my knowledge there is no minimum caster level for the spells themselves, only a minimum at which the class that gets them can cast a given spell. The ur-priest list is identical to the cleric list, since that's how the class feature is worded IIRC, but it's still the ur-priest list and the minimum caster level for ur-priest spells is the level at which the ur-priest gains access to that spell level.

[toapat]

To the best of my knowledge there is no minimum caster level for the spells themselves, only a minimum at which the class that gets them can cast a given spell. The ur-priest list is identical to the cleric list, since that's how the class feature is worded IIRC, but it's still the ur-priest list and the minimum caster level for ur-priest spells is the level at which the ur-priest gains access to that spell level.

the Ur-Priest doesnt have that dysfunction, but on checking the Divine Crusader, the Divine Crusader and sublime chord do.

[Dusk Eclipse]

the Ur-Priest doesnt have that dysfunction, but on checking the Divine Crusader, the Divine Crusader and sublime chord do.

Care to elaborate please?

[Flickerdart]

Care to elaborate please?

Toapat still thinks that there's a rule requiring a minimum caster level in order to cast spells, and that the "correct" caster levels for each spell are probably enshrined somewhere. This is, however, nonsense - the only "minimum caster level" rule that exists is for casting spells at a lower caster level than you normally have, and is a restriction against CL 1 Fireballs and such. While that means that a Divine Crusader with, say, the Force domain could not cast a caster level 1 Magic Missile on purpose (since it's a 2nd level spell for him, and requires a minimum of CL 2), there is nothing to suggest that he needs a CL of 3 to cast that Magic Missile.
Frankly, the rule for casting lower-CL spells is kind of tautological, since the CL you choose "must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question", but that is the only limitation for how low the CL can go. The train of thought becomes this:
Player: Can I cast wish at CL 1?
Rules: That depends on what the lowest CL you can cast wish at is.
Player: That's why I want to know if I can cast wish at level 1.
Rules: Can you?
Player: I don't know!
Rules: Me neither!
Player: Aaaaaaaa!
Rules: AAAAAAAAAA!
And then a helicopter explodes.
The easiest fix (and thus the closest to RAI, I think) is to add "normally" so that you get "must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question normally" which puts a build-based cap, rather than a class-based cap, on minimum spell CLs.

[TypoNinja]

Toapat still thinks that there's a rule requiring a minimum caster level in order to cast spells, and that the "correct" caster levels for each spell are probably enshrined somewhere. This is, however, nonsense - the only "minimum caster level" rule that exists is for casting spells at a lower caster level than you normally have, and is a restriction against CL 1 Fireballs and such. While that means that a Divine Crusader with, say, the Force domain could not cast a caster level 1 Magic Missile on purpose (since it's a 2nd level spell for him, and requires a minimum of CL 2), there is nothing to suggest that he needs a CL of 3 to cast that Magic Missile.

Yes, there's the rule that says when casting at a lower caster level you still have to maintain a high enough caster level to cast the spell (IE, 5th for fireball).

However as different classes sometimes get the same spell at different levels, the minimum required is variable based on the class rather than the spell it self. Its pretty easy to generate confusion with such a fine distinction.

Since the Ur-Priest gains spells at that level, that's the minimum level for an Ur-Priest to cast at.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, there's the rule that says when casting at a lower caster level you still have to maintain a high enough caster level to cast the spell (IE, 5th for fireball).

Why is 5th level the "high enough" CL for Fireball? I can cast it as CL1 - a Wizard 5/Fighter 1 with Mage Slayer has CL1 for all his spells, yet is entitled to Fireballs. CL1 Fireballs is normal for him, and the rules are clearly based on what is normal for characters, not their spell lists or their classes.

[Amidus Drexel]

Why is 5th level the "high enough" CL for Fireball? I can cast it as CL1 - a Wizard 5/Fighter 1 with Mage Slayer has CL1 for all his spells, yet is entitled to Fireballs. CL1 Fireballs is normal for him, and the rules are clearly based on what is normal for characters, not their spell lists or their classes.

Well, for most characters (i.e. your "average" wizard; one that doesn't have CL penalties) CL5 would be correct. Also, there's a case to be made that your wizard cannot cast fireball, if his caster level is that low.

[toapat]

While that means that a Divine Crusader with, say, the Force domain could not cast a caster level 1 Magic Missile on purpose (since it's a 2nd level spell for him, and requires a minimum of CL 2), there is nothing to suggest that he needs a CL of 3 to cast that Magic Missile.

Divine Crusader's Prepare and Cast spells as a cleric, Except she can not spontaineously cast cure and inflict spells

(same deal with Sublime Chord)

Minimum CL for a magic Missile is then 3 because the cleric has to invest at least CL3 in the spell. The Ur-Priest does not have the disfunction because they have the Ur-Priest spell list

also note that this disfunction is specifically the problem of Divine Crusader because unlike Sublime Chords, Divine Crusaders do not get to add previous levels they had to their DC CL. this means that at most, as far as i know, they can only have CL 14, not enough to cast their 8th+9th spells

[Flickerdart]

Well, for most characters (i.e. your "average" wizard; one that doesn't have CL penalties) CL5 would be correct. Also, there's a case to be made that your wizard cannot cast fireball, if his caster level is that low.

But the rule doesn't mention anything about "most" or "average". The rule is "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question". Normal, for this character, is CL1. Therefore, he can cast it at CL1, because CL1 is high enough for him to cast the spell in question. Is it stupid? Yes? Is it dysfunctional? Almost certainly. That's why I bring it up - it doesn't work like you'd expect it to without a leap of logic that doesn't exist in the text, but really should.

Minimum CL for a magic Missile is then 3 because the cleric has to invest at least CL3 in the spell.

Cite the rule. There's nothing anywhere that says 3 is the minimum CL for a Cleric with the Force Domain casting a Magic Missile.

[toapat]

Cite the rule. There's nothing anywhere that says 3 is the minimum CL for a Cleric with the Force Domain casting a Magic Missile.

All Level-Dependant features must be based on the same caster level.

Ass backwards and strange wording, but there it is. Because a cleric can not, without specific rules stating the exception, cast a 2nd level spell before third level, and at third level they have CL3, that is the minimum caster level for a Cleric to cast a second level spell slot.

By extention, because the Divine crusader casts as a cleric, they can never cast their 8th+9th level spells

[Flickerdart]

Ass backwards and strange wording, but there it is.

That wording is already present in the SRD, and quite clearly means that you can't cast a CL5 Fireball for the purposes of damage but CL10 for the purposes of SR penetration.

[toapat]

That wording is already present in the SRD, and quite clearly means that you can't cast a CL5 Fireball for the purposes of damage but CL10 for the purposes of SR penetration.

That is a separate paragraph, not an example. For instance, the ability to cast 3rd level spells, is based on having a character level of 5, which grants a Caster level of 5. Because you could not have cast that third level spell at level 4, you can not invest only 4 levels in it.

The PHB version is probably one of the only instances where an example in the books provides a legitimate explaination of what the book means, as opposed to restating the obvious like Practiced Spellcaster or not properly even touching on the questions involved like with Distracting attack.

[Flickerdart]

That is a separate paragraph, not an example. For instance, the ability to cast 3rd level spells, is based on having a character level of 5, which grants a Caster level of 5. Because you could not have cast that third level spell at level 4, you can not invest only 4 levels in it.

The PHB version is probably one of the only instances where an example in the books provides a legitimate explaination of what the book means, as opposed to restating the obvious like Practiced Spellcaster or not properly even touching on the questions involved like with Distracting attack.

Again, you're pulling this out of nothing, and stating it like it's rules. It's not only part of the same paragraph, it's part of the same sentence: 'You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level." The Rules Compendium is restating the same rule with different wording, because it is a compendium of rules and that is what it's for.

[toapat]

Again, you're pulling this out of nothing, and stating it like it's rules. It's not only part of the same paragraph, it's part of the same sentence: 'You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level." The Rules Compendium is restating the same rule with different wording, because it is a compendium of rules and that is what it's for.

the wording is the same in all 3 instances, and in the PHB it explicitly states, in the first useful example ive seen printed in the books, that minimum caster level for 3rd level spells on the wizard spell list is 5CL, because that is the minimum number of levels in Wizard required to have 3rd level spells.

Clerics can be assumed to be held to the same standard.

[Flickerdart]

the wording is the same in all 3 instances, and in the PHB it explicitly states, in the first useful example ive seen printed in the books, that minimum caster level for 3rd level spells on the wizard spell list is 5CL, because that is the minimum number of levels in Wizard required to have 3rd level spells.

Clerics can be assumed to be held to the same standard.

Page number, if you will? I've been referencing the SRD because it's more convenient, but if the books have an actual citation, then you should have just said so earlier.