-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loky1109
This impression isn't false.
This is the false impression:
"In place of an attack" doesn't mean you can actually attack. Here this sentence is only for determining numbers of attempts.
The first part of the sentence sole restricts your movement. I guess we share this view and we can proceed to the remaining part of the sentence.
The final part of the sentence gives you additional "attack replacement"-actions (in addition to those "attack replacement" options you are given in the general grappling rules).
Where does it say that you can't use the "general attack action"-options anymore? The general grappling rules still apply. You are still in a grapple state. A specific one, but the rule provided for that specific "pin" state sole restrict your movement and add options that you can use instead of an attack. Nowhere does it say you can't attack anymore.
This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted. The 3.5 "pin" state is when the grapplers are on the ground and one has the upper position. The grounded grappler can still attack (e.g. a headbutt; a knife, claws, bite...).
Do you know the "mount" stance? A common grappling stance from many combat arts. The "3.5 pin" resembles something like in This Video. You have the option to prevent your foe from speaking if you want (to invest your action into it), but you foe is still capable of attacking you back or can try to escape the "pin/mount" state. It is not a state of full lock used for submission. The 3.5 rules don't reflect this kind of grappling.
Quote:
Let's read.
"Cast a Spell" is the single grapple action option which has this sentence (or even while pinned). This means over options (besides options added in pin description) are not available. In pin description are added two options: "try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack" and "make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action". Eventually we have only three possible action for pinned creature.
If you still don't agree with me, there is one guy who can confirm my words, you maybe know him.
casting a spell just confirms with a friendly reminder that the general options are still available in the "pin" state.
Sadly, "Skip" seems to have the false impression what RAW is dictating here. His intention (if he did write that rule at all) was maybe that "pin" should resemble a "full lock submission hold", but that is not what the rules tell us. "Pin" is grounded grappling with one person in a favorable position, e.g. "mounting your foe".
Quote:
Your assumption "fire elemental can actually consist of cold fire" while is from real life physics and can be "explanation" doesn't work. First. I gave you quotas where write - Fire Elemental is hot!
Second. Aragorn's pant. J. R. R. Tolkien newer said that Aragorn wore pant. Does it mean that Aragorn walk around parading his reproductive organs or we should use default idea that men wear pants? Nowhere in D&D rules said nothing about Fire elemental temperature, yes. Do you really think Fire elemental can be room temperature without special indication to this? Or can we use our default that "fire is hot"?
It is impossible option.
Still impossible.
Read again:
What materials can be set aflame by a room temperature or a temperature slightly below boiling point?
Cold fire was just to showcase that you can produce fire at nearly any temperature. There are still limits like the freezing point. But the argument was intended to show that any temperature is possible. We assume that on first contact (when the fire is still fully exposed to Oxygen to fuel its reaction) the fire is at the hottest state and just enough to damage you. But constant contact extinguishes the flames locally temporarily enough to prevent further damage. While a punch or headbutt will cause new/additional body parts to come into contact.
___
As said, if we start to nitpick, we could also argue that nobody gets sunburn from taking fire damage or by having a fire elemental standing near to you all day long. And we have "sunburn" rules in Sandstorm, but these don't cover such specific situations. From a logical point of view: "When a foe's entire body was grilled by an fire AoE attack, he should have at least the same condition as someone who is merely sunburn."
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gruftzwerg
The final part of the sentence gives you additional "attack replacement"-actions (in addition to those "attack replacement" options you are given in the general grappling rules).
Can't agree with you. For me it looks exactly as full available list (plus casting a spell as special exception) of "attack replacement" actions available for pinned creature.
Quote:
Where does it say that you can't use the "general attack action"-options anymore?
By that logic, you can use this option being pinned:
Quote:
Escape from Grapple
You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).
and this:
Quote:
Pin Your Opponent
You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below).
Quote:
This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.
I think it exactly is. And should be. Yes, wording is slightly poor and ambiguous, but there are nothing against my interpretation.
Quote:
The 3.5 "pin" state is when the grapplers are on the ground and one has the upper position. The grounded grappler can still attack (e.g. a headbutt; a knife, claws, bite...).
Where did you take it from? It's clearly wrong. "On the ground" names "prone" not "pin".
Quote:
The "3.5 pin" resembles something like in This Video.
You need only to give at least some proof of this hypothesis.
Quote:
This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.
Ok. Let's say that. But then where is a full lock grappling technique? Or you want to say it doesn't exist?
Quote:
casting a spell just confirms with a friendly reminder that the general options are still available in the "pin" state.
It isn't "a friendly reminder" it is "the existence of an exception confirms the existence of the rule".
Quote:
Sadly, "Skip" seems to have the false impression what RAW is dictating here.
Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.
Quote:
Cold fire was just to showcase that you can produce fire at nearly any temperature. There are still limits like the freezing point. But the argument was intended to show that any temperature is possible. We assume that on first contact (when the fire is still fully exposed to Oxygen to fuel its reaction) the fire is at the hottest state and just enough to damage you. But constant contact extinguishes the flames locally temporarily enough to prevent further damage. While a punch or headbutt will cause new/additional body parts to come into contact.
Yes, you can use imagination and explain why it's harmless to hug fire elemental. Fact you need use imagination so hardly for explaining this exactly means this rule is dysfunctional.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Is that an additional, more general dysfunction, then? "Being grappled and pinned fails to prevent most actions?"
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bucky
Is that an additional, more general dysfunction, then? "Being grappled and pinned fails to prevent most actions?"
This is dysfunctional reading, not dysfunctional rule.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loky1109
Second. Aragorn's pant. J. R. R. Tolkien newer said that Aragorn wore pant. Does it mean that Aragorn walk around parading his reproductive organs or we should use default idea that men wear pants?
Minute of historic facts: ancient Romans considered pants a "barbaric clothes", and - indeed - wore no pants.
Medieval Europeans inherited this sentiment: chausses were, in fact, stockings - not pants.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Honnecourt.jpg
Now, since Lord of the Rings was made to look - more or less - like a medieval Europe, then should Aragorn really wear pants?
At the very least, he didn't - in the Ralph Bakshi's version:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/dl46K.jpg
https://64.media.tumblr.com/6b7e9c6f...cac89ce9d0.pnj
https://64.media.tumblr.com/10fb5007...4d19bf82e0.pnj
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
From the Player's Handbook II:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki Blast
A fighter can select Ki Blast as one of his fighter bonus feats. A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Ki Blast as her bonus feat at 8th level, as long as she possesses the Fiery Fist feat and a base attack bonus of +6 (other prerequisites can be ignored).
Problem is, a monk doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level; it happens at 6th level.
At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...
Thus a monk has no choice but to take the feat a 8th level, but doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level... color me confused!
(Note that it matter much considering Ki Blast is crap, but still...)
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
From the Player's Handbook II:
Problem is, a monk doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level; it happens at 6th level.
At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...
Thus a monk has no choice but to take the feat a 8th level, but doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level... color me confused!
(Note that it matter much considering Ki Blast is crap, but still...)
note that text beats table so that means monks get a 8th level bonus feat!
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jervis
note that text beats table so that means monks get a 8th level bonus feat!
But only if the bonus feat is Ki Blast! :smallamused:
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...
PHBII had introduced retrain. Maybe it's a nod to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShurikVch
But only if the bonus feat is Ki Blast! :smallamused:
Or Fiery Ki Defense. It has the same text.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loky1109
Can't agree with you. For me it looks exactly as full available list (plus casting a spell as special exception) of "attack replacement" actions available for pinned creature.
and which part of the text indicates this for you? If you can't point it out, it sole your imagination (no offense here, but my brain needs to confirm it, otherwise it won't believe you ;)
Quote:
By that logic, you can use this option being pinned:
Quote:
Escape from Grapple
You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).
and this:
Quote:
Pin Your Opponent
You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below).
Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"
Quote:
Originally Posted by When you are Pinned
On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you’re still grappling.
We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.
Regading "Pin Your Opponent":
It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?". And after 20 years of discussions, imho most people are on the "No you can't trip someone who is already tripped"-side. As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned". That is by logic not possible. It's like saying "I stand up, while already standing". You can't further stand up than normal. So pls, lets skip this nonsense. It won't make anyone happy and it won't bring any meaningful results.
Quote:
I think it exactly is. And should be. Yes, wording is slightly poor and ambiguous, but there are nothing against my interpretation.
...
Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.
Imho, if we ask how realistic the implementation of grappling into 3.5 is, we have to admit that it is far from perfect. It tries to give some oversimplified rules for a fluent gameplay.
What we have is:
- rules for standing grappling (standing as in the 3.5 rules)
- rules for grounded grappling (grounded as in the 3.5 rules)
The question or problem is, which kind of grounded grappling this is. Is it:
(a) just both grappler at the ground, both in equal good/bad position.
(b) both grapplers at the ground and one has the upper hand
(c) both grapplers are at the ground, but one has a "full lock" on the other.
I can see why the "full lock" option (c) is appealing and why even Skip Williams seems be believe in it. So you have an argument for RAI as said. But RAW speak another language here. RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options.
So imho, the "pin" state is best reflected by option (b), that one grappler has the upper hand, which alters the options slightly (and doesn't exchanges em completely).
If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gruftzwerg
and which part of the text indicates this for you?
Already did it. At least two times.
Quote:
Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"
Quote:
We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.
No. "Escape from Grapple" and "Escape the Pin" are different actions. Very similar, but clearly different. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?
Quote:
It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?".
What? Really, what??? Are you serious now?
Quote:
As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned".
You even didn't try to read carefully and understand my point, did you?
We are talking about actions available for PINNED creature. Not one who pins, but one who is pinned.
Quote:
What we have is:
- rules for standing grappling (standing as in the 3.5 rules)
- rules for grounded grappling (grounded as in the 3.5 rules)
There isn't different rules for standing and grounded grappling in D&D 3.5. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?
Quote:
The question or problem is, which kind of grounded grappling this is. Is it:
(a) just both grappler at the ground, both in equal good/bad position.
(b) both grapplers at the ground and one has the upper hand
(c) both grapplers are at the ground, but one has a "full lock" on the other.
"At the ground" is an unnecessary substance. There are no differences between "full lock" at the ground and "full lock" while standing. Both are the same pin.
Quote:
But RAW speak another language here.
Rules about grapple and pin are poor written and can be interpreted in two ways. RAW is ambiguous here. Not "RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options" is clear and only possible reading. You for some reason like this interpretation and want to think it is sole true, but you are wrong.
And while we have ambiguous wording we should use RAI. Especially since RAI is pretty clear stated by one of game designers.
Quote:
If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.
I gave you all you need, but I can't make you drink.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShurikVch
Minute of historic facts: ancient Romans considered pants a "barbaric clothes", and - indeed - wore no pants.
Medieval Europeans inherited this sentiment:
chausses were, in fact, stockings - not pants.
Wait a minute... could that be the explanation for the lack of a "pants" magic item slot?
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
Wait a minute... could that be the explanation for the lack of a "pants" magic item slot?
Stop! It isn't Functional Rules thread!
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loky1109
Stop! It isn't Functional Rules thread!
Yeah, I guess making too much sense is entirely against the mood of the thread...
Okay, this one I don't know if it counts as a dysfunctional rule, or just as false advertising...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items.
The bold part is indeed true... if you dismiss entirely the spells aerial alacrity, battletide, enhance familiar, haste, nature's avatar, swift haste, unmovable object and visions of the future.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
I'm honestly surprised that only 8 spells break the dodge bonus rule. (And I'm a bit amused that one of them is in the Player's Handbook, no less)
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Animus template (Dragon #339):
Quote:
Feats: An animus gain Alertness, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes as bonus feats, assuming it meets the prerequisites and it doesn't already have these feats.
Now: Alertness; Improved Initiative; Lightning Reflexes... :smallconfused: Gee, what "prerequisites"?
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AsuraKyoko
I'm honestly surprised that only 8 spells break the dodge bonus rule. (And I'm a bit amused that one of them is in the Player's Handbook, no less)
Well, on a technicality, you can add the spells heroics and mirror move to the list, since they can give a dodge bonus indirectly by granting feats such as Dodge or Combat Expertise.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShurikVch
In their defense this is likely a case of copy pasting or something.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
As a tangent from this thread, the Craft Artifact divine salient ability lets its holder create various magic items, but fails to specify that the items made with it are artifacts as opposed to normal magic items that happen to exceed the regular crafting limits.
3.5e, obviously
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShurikVch
Don't know if it belongs there, but Arms and Equipment Guide is peppered with mentions of 2E spells which either don't exist in 3E, or, at the very least, don't have the same name.
So far I noticed:
Closing Blade required Free Action spell
Death Spell is a requirement for Balor's Sword of Flame, Balor's Sword of Soul Stealing, and Sword of the Solars
there’s a lot of 2e in arms and equipment guide, there’s a big chunk of its item lists that’s the sfw sections of aurora’s whole realms catalogue. Which is a shame with some of the interesting bits being missing as I feel 3e could benefit from knowing the price of a elf dress versus a human dress
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
This one may have been already mentioned; at least I'm sure it was discussed on this forum, although maybe not in this thread.
The spell arcane spellsurge reduces casting time of arcane spells. For example, a "standard action" casting time becomes a swift action.
It cannot be ignored, though, thus it specifies that you can't cast two spells which casting times were both reduced to a swift action, because you can't use two swift actions in a round.
Except... you CAN uses two swift actions in a round. It's called "Readying an Action". With a standard action, you can ready a standard, move, swift or free action. And of course, the readying condition can be "immediately".
(Note that the original rules about readying an action don't mention the swift action, but that's only because they were introduced later in the game. The Rule Compendium clarifies that swift actions are covered by the Ready rules.)
Hence, the affirmation made by arcane spellsurge is blatantly false.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
Okay, this one I don't know if it counts as a dysfunctional rule, or just as false advertising...
The bold part is indeed true... if you dismiss entirely the spells aerial alacrity, battletide, enhance familiar, haste, nature's avatar, swift haste, unmovable object and visions of the future.
That's actually a dysfunction in the SRD, not the rules. The rules said no dodge bonuses from magic in 3.0, in 3.5 they say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMG p.21
Spells and magic items occasionally grant dodge bonuses
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggus
That's actually a dysfunction in the SRD, not the rules. The rules said no dodge bonuses from magic in 3.0, in 3.5 they say: "Spells and magic items occasionally grant dodge bonuses"
So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tohron
So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?
If you can convince your DM to let you do so, then yes.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tohron
So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?
If you're convincing your DM to let you make custom items already anyways, sure. It'd be -weird- but there isn't anything that would contradict it working; bonus types really only 'usually' apply to certain things.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
On the DM end, I might allow a one-off Dodge bonus to saving throws, particularly Reflex. Not more than once per campaign, though.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bucky
On the DM end, I might allow a one-off Dodge bonus to saving throws, particularly Reflex. Not more than once per campaign, though.
Reflex saves are one of the things Dodge bonuses are supposed to apply to normally, iirc.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
You are correct, dodge bonuses to reflex saves are specifically called out as valid. The haste spell and whirling frenzy barbarian both give dodge bonuses to reflex saves.
Dodge bonuses to Will or Fort saves are what I might allow once per campaign.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jervis
Not sure if this has been mentioned in one of these threads before, but the -2 sword being awesome will always be a favorite of mine.
Back in 1st edition I had a local bandit leader called the "Cursed Bandit". His schtick was to infiltrate caravans as an ordinary, unarmed person then ambush the leadership or guards in cursed fullplate and cursed sword, just before his minions ambushed. Sure both weapon and armor were -1 and might shatter under rare circumstances, but were a lot better than fighting unarmed and he usually started in some situation when he was at a major advantage (target is sleeping, bathing, etc - if he was the appropriate gender preference he might try an "intimate" meeting with them).
His goal was to acquire more such items so he could infiltrate with a squad but the PC's put him down. His Lieutenants tended to be equipped with magical loot scrapings from the bottom of the magic-mart barrel - +1 scale armor or shortsword +1/+4 vs lizards. He had ties with merchants that bought the crap found in dungeons that no PC ever wanted to use. Some items had in fact been recently sold by PCs, which also exposed his merchant contacts much to the displeasure of local law enforcement and their fellow merchants.
-
Re: Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules
Quote:
Enforcers gain a +1 bonus to their leadership score, although the maximum number and level of their followers and cohorts remains standard.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but what other use there for the Leadership score, if not for the level and number of cohort and followers?
Also, don't know if it was already mentioned, but:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormwrack
A humanoid or monstrous humanoid who dons the admiral’s bicorne gains a +5 bonus on Profession (sailor) checks and all Charisma-based checks (including Leadership) as long as it is worn.
Leadership is not a check...