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

[Greenish]

Knowledge Devotion is pretty well designed feat. It provides relevant bonus, scales but not for free and rewards having more than one person in a party who's not a total ignoramus.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

Well, you'll have to forgive us then, since what you've said so far has amounted to demanding that Knowledge Devotion work like the Truenamer.

The class which is generally agreed to be completely broken in the unplayable sense and the only handbook for which advises people to never, ever play the class because it was so poorly designed.

So, you'll find that a good portion of the community disagrees with your assertion that such would be good design.

[NeoSeraphi]

A dread necromancer is the scariest creature alive. You fail one save against his fear aura, and even if you kill him, a whole ten years later, you're still shaken from that one look. (RAW, a dread necromancer's fear aura has no duration so it never ends)

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

The class which is generally agreed to be completely broken in the unplayable sense and the only handbook for which advises people to never, ever play the class because it was so poorly designed.

It's not actually the only one.

[Starbuck_II]

Since people mentioned Swordsage AC (even though that isn't dysfunctional):
I mentioned Armored Uncanny Dodge: What is the Eternal Blade even trying to help with?
Is there some Uncanny dodge abilities that only work in light armor? Did they assume it was for for light armor for Barbarians/Rogues?

Why give an useless ability?

Supposedly, it is Uncanny Dodge but works in any armor... but they all do....

[n00bsticker]

Originally Posted by Boci

At what level do you think it would be fair for a character to get +5 to hit and damage from knowledge devotion?

The way it works utilizing the house rule I have already described, +5 to hit and damage comes online around level 9-10, just not for every monster that you fight. This is intentional, and by design.

Before anybody starts crying about the skill points, skills are so horrendously under powered that you could completely remove them from the game, assume that everyone has full ranks, and you'd barely even notice it. Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.

He's saying that the obcurity of the more powerful monsters is countered by their more pronouced roles in myths (and presumably the character's greater knowledge skill).

Mythological stories about monsters are not equivalent to knowledge that grants combat bonuses.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

The way it works utilizing the house rule I have already described, +5 to hit and damage comes online around level 9-10, just not for every monster that you fight. This is intentional, and by design.

Before anybody starts crying about the skill points, skills are so horrendously under powered that you could completely remove them from the game, assume that everyone has full ranks, and you'd barely even notice it. Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.

At what level do you think the DC for +5 to hit and damage should be achievably?

[n00bsticker]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Boci

At what level do you think the DC for +5 to hit and damage should be achievably?

I think he wants the feat to give weaker benefits against stronger opponents. Kinda like (Great) Cleave.

[SlashRunner]

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

{Scrub the post, scrub the post}

...
I think you're coming off as a bit arrogant here. Honestly, no matter the substance of your arguments, if you keep saying stuff like that you're not going to be getting much support.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.

Then what's it matter if it's a weak, underpowered feat even when you can reliably hit +5 to hit and damage? Or are you saying that you really, really like the 7 odd feats anyone ever gets in their career to be even weaker than the designers intended with their albatross fighter?

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

Mythological stories about monsters are not equivalent to knowledge that grants combat bonuses.

Except when they are things that directly tie into remembering that one story about how Wossname exploited the weakness that medusas have to getting their middle fingers whacked. Funny, that.

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

Wrong.

Then speak more clearly so you actually get your point across rather than saying things that are going to be interpreted as something other than your meaning.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by n00bsticker

I just told you.

Just to be clear, can you please repeat it. A single number between 0 and 21.

[n00bsticker]

{{scrubbed}}

[Boci]

{{scrubbed}}

[n00bsticker]

{{scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

I think his problem with Knowledge Devotion is that it's DC doesn't scale depending on the creature being fought, so once you can make the check for +5, it doesn't matter whether you fight a squirrel or Jabberwocky.

[Edit]: Jabberwocky would probably be magical beast or something like that. Imagine it's an animal for the above example.

[Boci]

Originally Posted by Greenish

I think his problem with Knowledge Devotion is that it's DC doesn't scale depending on the creature being fought, so once you can make the check for +5, it doesn't matter whether you fight a squirrel or Jabberwocky.

Maybe if he actually helped people understand his position, more people would understand his position.

[Jeraa]

[Edit]: Jabberwocky would probably be magical beast or something like that. Imagine it's an animal for the above example.

Off topic, but the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 lists it as a dragon.

[Hirax]

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

[Greenish]

Originally Posted by Hirax

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

Good catch. I'm now off to make myself a Liveoak tower shield.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Hirax

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

I think it also doesn't work on livewood for the same reason, so a livewood ship is impervious to it.

[NeoSeraphi]

Well, thanks to the Knowledge Devotion argument, my last comment was completely ignored and lost in all the ranting, so I'll try again...

I'm not sure this is one hundred percent accurate, but it's interesting to me, if a dragonborn gnome takes gnome paragon, they can get additional daily uses of spell-like abilities they no longer possess...(Away from Book, can't check on Gnome Paragon's exact wording)

[Fox Box Socks]

Originally Posted by Stone To Flesh via the SRD

this spell would turn a stone golem into a flesh golem

Originally Posted by Stone Golem via the SRD

A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.

So what happens when you cast Stone to Flesh on a Stone Golem?

[Flickerdart]

Originally Posted by Fox Box Socks

So what happens when you cast Stone to Flesh on a Stone Golem?

Cast it once, it negates its magic immunity (including the special flesh to stone clause). Cast it a second time, and it becomes a Flesh Golem, as per the spell.

[Jeraa]

Originally Posted by Hirax

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

Originally Posted by DMG, page 87

The trunk of a typical tree has AC 4, hardness 5, and 150 hp. A DC 15 Climb check is sufficient to climb a tree.

[tyckspoon]

Originally Posted by Jeraa

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

If I remember this right, the claim goes that Disintegrate works on two things: Creatures and specifically *nonliving* objects. It does damage to creatures, and it just rips a chunk out of nonliving objects. Trees are not creatures, but they are also not nonliving. Disintegrate just doesn't address them at all.

[Hirax]

Originally Posted by Jeraa

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

Disintegrate only affects creatures and objects composed of non-living matter. Trees by rule are objects. Therefore, a living tree is not affected.

[Zaq]

Originally Posted by Jeraa

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

Not quite.

Originally Posted by SRD

Disintegrate
Transmutation
Level: Destruction 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes

A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.

When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
Arcane Material Component

A lodestone and a pinch of dust.

Emphasis added. Trees aren't creatures, so they don't fall under the first paragraph, and they're not nonliving matter, so they don't fall under the second paragraph. The spell has no provisions for affecting anything else, so they're immune.

Edit: Bah! Cursed Swordsages! Foiled again! At least I provided a reference, though . . .

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by NeoSeraphi

I'm not sure this is one hundred percent accurate, but it's interesting to me, if a dragonborn gnome takes gnome paragon, they can get additional daily uses of spell-like abilities they no longer possess...(Away from Book, can't check on Gnome Paragon's exact wording)

Gnome Paragon doesn't seem to grant extra uses. There's some substitution levels that do though, I think.

And I believe a feat that gives anyone with innate SLAs more uses of them per day. Can't remember its name though. Magic in the Blood, maybe? Google seems to say it is and is from Player's Guide to Faerun.

[NeoSeraphi]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Gnome Paragon doesn't seem to grant extra uses. There's some substitution levels that do though, I think.

And I believe a feat that gives anyone with innate SLAs more uses of them per day. Can't remember its name though. Magic in the Blood, maybe? Google seems to say it is and is from Player's Guide to Faerun.

Oops. Same post, but with dragonborn drow instead.