"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Emperor Tippy]

You are making the assumption that you can be both willing and unwilling at the same time.

"Target" has nothing to do with the spell, it is a check made based on what you are attempting to affect with the spell. If you are "willing" then you are a valid target for spells that are "willing only".

If you are willing, then per Voluntarily Failing a Saving Throw; you get no save.

A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.

[Andorax]

Ashtagon, I've added Dodging While Asleep as rule 035, but I'm also listed as against it.

Even objects receive reflex saving throws...so sleeping individuals shouldn't be denied what even objects receive. I'm not sure if I want to propose it as RASCD, but I personally DM sleeping individuals as "Dex 0" with regards to reflex saves (-5 to the check).


Onikani, I read over your comments on Rule 34, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking to have clarified. The net rules effect is identical either way (whether it's a shirt or a 'full outfit'), because either way the "Body" spot is being occupied, and taking up the space that armor, robes, or another shirt/outfit would occupy.

I'm not sure what "clear RAW" this is in conflict with. A body slot clothing item can hold +Armor enhancements. Clothing in the PHB is defined in terms of outfits.

If you're looking at the Torso issue...then that issue already exists and isn't a problem. You can legally wear a vest (of Escape for example) and a suit of armor...one occupying the Torso, the other the Body.


-------------

Regarding rule #030. I opted for the Strict Aptitude approach because of examples such as Lightning Maces. The problem with applying Aptitude to feats like this is that there are a number of cases (this being one of them) where the nature of the weapon matters as much as the nature of the wielder.

TOB 148: "A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus...or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality."

By RAW (and fixed by Rule #030), you can Flay (PHBII) someone with a club, or (with a particularly tortured reading) strike someone with an Aptitude Greatsword and have the blow carry through for a 60' line (Penetrating Shot, PHBII).

-------------



As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.

[Talakeal]

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

You are making the assumption that you can be both willing and unwilling at the same time.

"Target" has nothing to do with the spell, it is a check made based on what you are attempting to affect with the spell. If you are "willing" then you are a valid target for spells that are "willing only".

If you are willing, then per Voluntarily Failing a Saving Throw; you get no save.

A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.

Where are you getting that from? Not saying you are wrong, but everything I see about lowering a save or saving versus a harmless spell says you may "willingly choose to", rather than just "willing".

One implies a conscious action, the other a state of being.

[hamishspence]

Possibilities:

A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all "willing-only" spells- and unwilling for the purpose of all other spells.

Alternatively:

A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all spells cast by allies, and unwilling for the purposes of all spells cast by non-allies.

Any other suggestions for making it reasonable?

One of the most traditional D&D tropes is finding a sleeping chromatic dragon and trying to do as much damage as you can before it wakes up (dragons spend a lot of time asleep)

If sleeping = unconscious, and unconscious = willing for the purposes of all spells cast, you'd think most dragons would have been found by spell casters and slain in their sleep long ago.

[Szar_Lakol]

"Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.

[Malachei]

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol

"Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.

Can we please respect the OP's wish?

Originally Posted by Andorax

As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.

And discuss this somewhere else?

[TypoNinja]

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.

Why not? Why must the two states be linked?

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Malachei

Can we please respect the OP's wish?

And discuss this somewhere else?

New Thread

[Zeful]

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes For.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier For.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels For, this is RAW.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike Abstain.
Rule 005: Dead is DeadFor.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally For
Rule 007: Lions with Hooves For.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage Abstain.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? For.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? For.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox For.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed For.
Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped For, this is RAW.
Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? For.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour For.
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For.
Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.
Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield! For.
Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles For.
Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No For.
Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead For.
Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted For.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats For.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous For.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified For.
Rule 029: Whiplash For.
Rule 030: Strict Aptitude For.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield For.
Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity For.
Rule 033: No Double Dipping For.
Rule 034: Armored Outfits For.
Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Against.

[Sutremaine]

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Yes. Bucket healing is very silly.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Yes.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: Maybe. If you're playing a little-supported class and have nothing better to do with your levels than rack up more numbers, then I don't see a problem with advancing your pseudo-CL at the cost of gaining nothing but BAB, saves, and skill points. But otherwise, yes. Perhaps a note that advancing beyond the table for your chosen class is purely at the DM's discretion.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Yes. It seems pretty clear that your Monk levels (or any other comparable ones) should only benefit you.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Yes.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Yes.
Rule 007: Lions with Hooves: Yes. If only D&D had [STANCE], [GRASP], and [FLIER] tokens...
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox: Yes.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.
Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Yes.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.
Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.
Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!: Yes.
Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Yes.
Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Yes. Given how positive energy affects undead on the Material Plane, it seems a bit of an oversight that a whole plane full of the stuff is actually quite nice for them.
Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted: Yes.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats: Maybe. May need more text about whether or not having an extraordinary ability allows you to use it even if the results of said ability would be suppressed in an AMF field.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous: Yes.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified: No.
Rule 029: Whiplash: Yes. Sure, why not?
Rule 030: Strict Aptitude: Yes. The property shouldn't exist anyway; characters should be able to swap focus for a feat without waiting for a level-up.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield: Yes.
Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: Unarmed yes, ranged no.
Rule 033: No Double Dipping: Yes. Even being able to get the whole of your stat bonus to AC twice without investing a whole bunch of levels is a problem, but this will have to do as a quick fix.
Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?
Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.

[tuggyne]

So, time for some updated opinions here

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: I'm not sure I've actually come right out and said it, but I disagree with this as stated, and consider it excessive.

I will, however, propose an alternative, and smaller, correction:
Rule 036
No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original, or in the case of a heightened spell, below its heightened level.

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: If I'm reading this correctly, I believe this is the right way to look at it, and therefore agree for reasons stated in the other thread and similar.

Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: OK, at first I thought this would work, but now I have to admit it's going a bit far for mere "common sense"; it's a great houserule, I'd put it in, but it's probably more correct for the basic rules to force AoO provocation on each such attack. So I'm reluctantly changing my vote to disagree.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits: I think this is suitable in its new form, so I agree.

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: I do not consider this a suitable change, either as a houserule, as common sense, or anything else; disagree.

---

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.

While I agree that the charging rules as they currently stand are unacceptably bizarre, I'm not convinced that this is an adequate replacement. (I should probably take some time to work up an alternate suggestion.)

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

Either way, clarification seems desired.

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?

It is, or should be, but an editing error in the 3.5 update caused some potential confusion.

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?

MIC I believe makes rules for this sort of thing work, but not everyone is aware of their ramifications.

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.

That's probably a reasonable way to look at it; also, IMO, reflex saves are sufficiently odd already that trying to straighten them out by saying "you don't get reflex saves when asleep" is probably counter-productive and harmful to balance. Reworking the system might work, but is probably far out of scope for the thread.

[Keld Denar]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

Either way, clarification seems desired.

As the person who wrote it, this is what I ment. It doesn't matter HOW many weapons you are wielding, and you could wield quite a few (1 in each hand + armor spikes + weighted cloak + 2x boot blades + 2x elbow blades + 2x knee blades + mouthpick weapon = 11 without REALLY trying). It doesn't matter HOW MANY of them you attack with in a round, either, or what order or what combination. None of them are offhands UNLESS you are making a TWFing full attack. You have to state you are using TWFing before you make your first attack (because the penalties apply to ALL attacks with manufactured weapons, not just offhands). You can't change your mind and decide to TWF half way through the round. Since you know before you make your first attack that you will be TWFing, you know that one of your weapons will be designated as "offhand", and that weapon can only be used to make offhand attacks gained via the TWFing combat option.

I'd even go so far as to say that Skip never anticipated a person wielding more than 2 weapons, or using weapons that aren't wielded by your hands even though armor spikes are a core example of doing just that. Since Skip doesn't even discuss those parts of the rules, I'd be a fool to believe he thought everything through when he wrote that article.

The reason I proposed this rule was in light of a rather lengthy dissertation I wrote over on En-World WRT 3.0 vs 3.5 and the changes to TWFing and "offhands" and monks. Spoilered for length:

Spoiler

3.5 got rid of handedness. In 3.0, if you were right handed, and you did anything with your left hand, you got penalized -4 on it unless you had the Ambidextarity feat. Monks had an explicit work around for this, stating that a monk can strike unarmed with either limb, or any part of their body without suffering offhand penalties. Basically, monks were given a half version of Ambidextarity that only applies to striking unarmed.

Fast forward a half an edition. 3.5 eliminated handedness. Everyone is able to attack with whatever hand they want, or indeed attack without hands at all. If you have, for example, a BAB of +6, and are currently wielding a longsword in your right, a shortsword in your left, and you have armor spikes, you can strike longsword/shortsword, shortsword/longsword, longsword/longsword, shortsword/shortsword, longsword/spikes, shortsword/spikes, or spikes/spikes. Order doesn't matter, as long as the highest bonus attack is first. All attacks are mainhand, since the character is only making their normal iterative attacks. Heck, he could even attack once with his longsword, drop it and the shortsword, Quickdraw a shortbow and fire that. No handedness means that all iterative attacks are mainhand, no matter which hand, if any, is used to make it. This is supported by RAW and the FAQ.

So when does a person use TWFing? TWFing is a special combat maneuver. It requires a full attack, which generally means a full round action. TWFing grants an extra attack, with some very special stipulations. First, the extra attack can't be made with any weapon used in the primary array of attacks. In the above example, if the character attacks with longsword/shortsword as primary attacks, his armor spikes would be his offhand. If he attacked longsword/longsword as his primary attacks, he could use either the shortsword or the spikes as his offhand attack. Secondly, the mechanical modifiers. Depending on your feats and the size of your offhand, this could be as much as -10 or as little as -2. Also, any attack designated as offhand receives only half +Str to damage, regardless of how it is wielded. If i TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, my greatsword gets +1.5x Str if I use it as my primary (which means my spikes get +0.5 Str). If I make my spikes my primary, they would get normal +1x Str, while my greatsword would only get +0.5 Str, despite that it is 2handed. I'd also take major penalties since my offhand is not light.

So, how does this interact with Monks? Well, FoB is very similar to TWFing, but also different. FoB does give an extra attack, but it doesn't make that extra attack an offhand. In that way, FoB is more like Rapid Shot than TWFing. Rapid Shot gives an extra attack per round, but does not make the attacks offhanded. So, when the rules state "there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk fighting unarmed" that conforms with the normal rules for everyone else. The monk using just FoBs doesn't have an offhand. NOBODY in that situation has an offhand, because nobody making their normal iterative attacks has an offhand, because handedness was removed in 3.5. The only people who DO have an offhand are the people who take a full attack action which includes the TWFing combat action.

FoB, TWFing, and Rapid Shot can actually all be combined. If a Monk had the relevant feats and say, a BAB of +6, he could throw 2 shurikens with his iteratives, 1 with his FoB, 1 with his Rapid Shot, and up to 2 as offhand attacks. All penalties would be cumulative. All throws would get full +Str to damage except for the 2 made as offhand attacks, which would only get half.

The only place where there is any ambiguity is is how to treat UASs. Is it one weapon that is comprised of every striking surface of your body, as is alluded to in the combat chapter? Can a character wield more than one UAS, so to speak, as indicated by the Kensai PrC? That is grey, and relatively unclear. If it is one weapon, then it can't be combined with itself at all in TWFing, since your offhand has to be different from all of the weapons you make your primaries with. If you can wield multiple, so to speak, then you most definitely can TWF with your UAS, and you could indeed attack with FoB and TWFing in the same full attack with just your UAS. You simply separate the attacks out. Mainhand and flurry attacks deal full +Str damage. TWFing UAS attacks only get 1/2 +Str.

I hope this helps clear things up. I've done a lot of research and thinking about this topic, and I'm pretty sure I got everything right.

[Sutremaine]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

I thought the phrasing was clear enough? If you could be making TWF extra attacks in a round but aren't doing so, then the TWF penalties aren't in force because you're not doing anything that interacts with the TWF rules. If you get TWF penalties for holding two weapons even if you aren't attacking with both of them in that round, then you'd need a second clarification to define 'weapon' in such a way that gauntlets, shields, and improvised weapons are excluded from that definition.

It was more a note on the slight vagueness of the word 'using'. If a rule comes into effect when you use Power Attack, then that's pretty simple to figure out because a Power Attack has to be declared. You could argue that Power Attack, once taken, defaults to being used every round at -0/+0 and therefore the hypothetical rule is always in effect, but you probably wouldn't get very far.

With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.

[Szar_Lakol]

Keld Denar, while I don't have any problem with eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule), claiming handedness doesn't exist in 3.5 is just plain wrong. Off hand is defined as just that.

[Sutremaine]

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol

eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule)

Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.

[Szar_Lakol]

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.

The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.

[tyckspoon]

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol

Keld Denar, while I don't have any problem with eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule), claiming handedness doesn't exist in 3.5 is just plain wrong. Off hand is defined as just that.

There is no actual definition of 'off-hand' in the 3.5 SRD, except in relation to two-weapon fighting. When deciding what your character looks like and his other statistics, you are not told to choose or roll for handedness (considering you do get random height, weight, and age charts, this seems like something they would have put in that chapter if it was to have a real game effect.) The only place where it actually tells you that you might have a pre-defined 'primary' and 'off' hand is in the Glossary.. which is conspicuously not in the SRD. So.. why does anything in the Player's Handbook not get in the SRD?

Either it's Product Identity, excluded from the Open Game License, and therefore not freely distributed in the SRD.. or it's not considered to be rules-relevant text. And the glossary isn't Product Identity.

[Godskook]

Originally Posted by Andorax

Ashtagon, I've added Dodging While Asleep as rule 035, but I'm also listed as against it.

Even objects receive reflex saving throws...so sleeping individuals shouldn't be denied what even objects receive. I'm not sure if I want to propose it as RASCD, but I personally DM sleeping individuals as "Dex 0" with regards to reflex saves (-5 to the check).

1.Against the new rule 35.

2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

3.Dex 0, is again, penalizing sleeping(which you can still hear while doing) more than objects.(A lvl 1 sleeping wizard would have -5 ref while a wand would have a +2).

4.As for the inevitable 'well just deny the dex bonus', I'm going to pre-emptively vote no to that one too.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.

An apt summary.

Originally Posted by Godskook

2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

While I kind of doubt 035 will receive any further support from anyone, I would like to note that the only real disadvantages of assigning official numbers to rules that will probably eventually be removed are (1) cluttering the original post; (2) creating additional work for the maintainer. (The additional discussion induced by the suggestion would have to happen anyway.) As such, it's really mostly up to the maintainer to determine.

On the other hand, the primary advantage is basically that it makes it easier to discuss consistently.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Zeful]

Originally Posted by Godskook

2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

The best we can get is that something must be seconded before it can be voted on, and it has 24 hours from the vote starting (either the OP announcing that voting has started, or the seconding itself) to accumulate 10 votes or get pulled for non-interest.

[hamishspence]

Opinions:

15: Unconscious creatures should still get saves vs spells: Yes: unconscious creatures still get saves.

35: Asleep creatures should auto fail all Ref saves: No- the rules for "helpless" (and asleep includes "helpless") say you are "treated as Dex 0"- which does not include this- unlike Dex -, which creatures like shrieker mushrooms have.

[Ashtagon]

34 Agree

35 I'd like to withdraw this proposal. It seemed like common sense at the time and an interesting quirk, but even when I wrote it I wasn't sure it was strong enough to be worth 'correcting'. Having seen the way everyone else sees it now and their justifications, I'd like to withdraw my vote.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by Andorax

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.

Disagree strongly. That's the entire point of Legacy - the reason to take the class, and the reason for the class to exist.

Agree on 005 though. I've heard some pretty wacky debates. Did you know that depending on what spell you use to return someone to life, strictly RAW, the "dead" condition has not been removed? It requires an interpretation of "you return someone to life" as meaning that the "dead" condition no longer applies.

27 yes, 29 no, 28 is already covered in C. War as it implies a cascade failure if you fail to meet class requirements of a class you belong to. (Things dependent on that thing fail.)

I would like to propose a "common sense" rule of "Infinite loops are right out: Anything that would cause an infinite or recursive gain is automatically disallowed."

I believe that double dipping abilities IS acceptable if they are different (for example the hexblade boost to saves is not the same as the blackguard's; one applies Cha to all saves and the other only to spells and spell-like abilities.) They are different abilities from different sources; why shouldn't they stack? Similarly the Mysticism domain grants a temporary boost to saves equal to Cha, but the Paladin Divine Grace is a permanent improvement to saves based on Cha. These are clearly different things.

13 was clarified somewhere for one apotheosis class. It just wasn't written out to apply to all apotheosis classes.

[Keld Denar]

Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol

The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.

If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.

[Gwendol]

There is always an off-hand. It's clearly described in the rules.
A shield-bash for example is an off-hand attack. The rules furthermore indicate the off-hand to be a label more than a designation (of an actual hand) through the definition of armor spikes:

You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

To further illustrate this we can use Skip Williams' example: A fighter with a longsword in one hand and a lit torch in the other. Furthermore, the fighter uses spiked armor.

The fighter now designates any of the weapons, and the torch, as his primary weapon, which by consequence makes the others off-hand.

Taking your example of a character armed with armor spikes and a mouthpick. The character designates which is the primary weapon, which then makes the other the off-hand weapon. It would have been clearer to name them primary and secondary weapon (s), but they didn't.
Regarding monks, their FoB attacks could be considered primary, and any additional (non-special monk) weapon attacks are then "off-hand" for determining penalties when full-attacking (or the other way around).
Regarding STR damage bonuses when wielding an off-hand weapon two-handed (yes, it gets confusing): I think there is enough rules support to give that attack +STR damage (instead of 1/2 STR) due to the fact that adding a hand to a weapon swing adds another 1/2 STR damage bonus (see for example savage species). Note that this can't be done with light weapons, only 1- and 2-handed weapons.

[Carr0t]

Rule 001: Agree.
Rule 002: Agree.
Rule 004: Agree.
Rule 005: Agree.
Rule 006: Agree.
Rule 007: Agree.
Rule 014: Agree.
Rule 015: Agree.
Rule 016: Disagree, sort of.
Rule 017: Agree.
Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 019: Disagree.
Rule 020: Agree.
Rule 021: Agree.
Rule 022: Agree.
Rule 023: Agree.
Rule 025: Agree.
Rule 026: Agree.
Rule 027: Agree.
Rule 028: Agree.
Rule 029: Agree.
Rule 030: Agree.
Rule 031: Agree.
Rule 032: Disagree.
Rule 033: Agree.
Rule 034: Agree.
Rule 035: Disagree.

[Darrin]

Originally Posted by Zeful

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For.

Ok, you voted for something that says when a natural weapon is occupied, it is not available to attack.

Originally Posted by Zeful

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.

Please explain when a Warforged loses his slam attack.

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.

Do mean a creature holding a sword in a claw could attack with the sword, drop the sword, then attack with that claw? I don't think that passes the smell test.

Or do you mean drop first (no sword attack), then claw? That's RAW, no problem there.

Originally Posted by Sutremaine

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.

You too. If a giant loses his slam attacks by wielding weapons, when does a Warforged lose his slam?

Originally Posted by Carr0t

Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 019: Disagree.

Could you elaborate?

The majority appears to be against me, but I still have no idea what exactly you would prefer. It seems to me you're all arguing for the following:

Large humanoids with two slam attacks lose them if they do something else with their arms. All other creatures with slam attacks keep them regardless of what they're doing with their arms.

I'm perfectly happy with accepting that as a viable common-sense solution, but I'm not getting the sense that's what you all would prefer.

[Gwendol]

Darrin, I'm still not quite understanding the issue here, but have withdrawn my previous vote.

My understanding was that all creatures would lose their slam attack if their arms were occupied, no? In particular medium sized creatures with only one attack (I figure they need both arms to deliver the attack).

[Szar_Lakol]

Originally Posted by Keld Denar

If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.

An off-hand attack (as per TWFing) is not the same as an attack with the off hand. The off hand is the non-dominant hand. It's confusing terminology, and most likely, the glossary entry is a remnant from 3.0, but since it's there, we can't just ignore it while discussing RAW; chirality is still a thing. Off hand is defined in the rules (unless you want to claim the glossary isn't part of the rules).

Attacking with armor spikes (or any other weapon that isn't wielded in the hand) has nothing to do with handedness.

[Dayzgone]

Rule 001: Agree
Rule 002: Agree
Rule 003: Disagree
Rule 004: Agree
Rule 005: Agree
Rule 006: Agree
Rule 007: Agree
Rule 008: No comment
Rule 010: Agree
Rule 011: Agree
Rule 013: Agree
Rule 014: Agree
Rule 015: Agree
Rule 016: Agree
Rule 017: Agree
Rule 018: Agree
Rule 019: Agree
Rule 020: Agree
Rule 021: Agree
Rule 022: Agree
Rule 023: Agree
Rule 025: Agree
Rule 026: Agree
Rule 027: Agree
Rule 028: Disagree- u should not be able to get feats that have pre-reqs if u only have a temp
Rule 029: No comment
Rule 030: Agree
Rule 031: Agree
Rule 032: No comment
Rule 033: Agree (But I still do it :P)
Rule 034: No comment

For number 35

Spoiler

I would say that sleeping character can’t make a reflex save, because how can they react to something if they can’t even move.

But I see the problem with this since objects and creatures that don’t move still get a saving throw.

Why not give helpless/ sleeping creatures a luck throw instead. Where they don’t get there base or dex to the save, but are still allowed to roll a d20. The idea being that maybe they were just in the right place at the right time. Maybe the explosion didn’t mushroom out in that general direction, or maybe a rock/ tree took most of the blast for them. Even in real life things like this happen, a grenade falls into a hole with 3 guys standing in it. 2 notice and dive for cover, 1 gets out fine, the other loses his legs, but then the 3rd guy who wasn’t paying attention only gets a few scrapes just because he was lucky enough that the shrapnel didn’t fly in his direction.

This means that low DC checks (like say a artillery round) has a chance of “just missing”, while a high DC check (a guided missile) will always hit unless one can move out of the way.