# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

## Promethean

Basically title.

For me some of the funniest things I found was the "Greater Mummy"(Not mummy lord), which was essentially a beefed up version of the Mummy template, but got a free +0 LA because of the wording of the stat block(it had "Advancement: By _character_ class" rather than advancement:--).

Another is finding out that metabreath feats self-stack, so a brass dragon can roleplay as the evil queen from sleeping beauty and curse a kingdom with eternal sleep.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

That's not what "Advancement: By character class" means.  :Small Confused:  :Small Confused:

----------


## Promethean

> That's not what "Advancement: By character class" means.


As per savage species, anything with "advance by character class" is effectively an LA +0 as a template.

*Edit:* Went back and read some stuff. The rule isn't that "advancement: by character class" is what makes it LA: +0, it's the fact that missing an LA: x entry sets it to "As base creature" because of how the SRD is worded. Granted I was able to find errata deities and demigods that set it to +4.

----------


## ShurikVch

If you want +0 mummy, check the Mumia template in _Ghostwalk_: it have no listed LA, and 3.5 update booklet - while updating the template in question - doesn't added any LA too
Mumia have no Despair, Mummy Rot, DR, or ability scores bonus; but have Con-damaging touch, fast healing 2, turn resistance 2, and no vulnerability to fire

----------


## Promethean

> If you want +0 mummy, check the Mumia template in _Ghostwalk_: it have no listed LA, and 3.5 update booklet - while updating the template in question - doesn't added any LA too
> Mumia have no Despair, Mummy Rot, DR, or ability scores bonus; but have Con-damaging touch, fast healing 2, turn resistance 2, and no vulnerability to fire


It's not that I want a +0 template. My original thought was that it was a template that they forgot to add LA to. Which I thought was hilarious.

Going back to check, I'd misremembered deities and demigods as a 3.5 supplement. None, of the 3.0 stuff had LA until savage species invented the idea.

It's kind of embarrassing really.

----------


## AvatarVecna

Does it have to be weird little quirks in RAW that are the result of WotC not thinking through the possibility of multiple mechanics interacting, or can it just be a single rule in plaintext whose existence is hilarious?

If the latter is viable:




> If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Search skill drops by 4.

----------


## Promethean

> Does it have to be weird little quirks in RAW that are the result of WotC not thinking through the possibility of multiple mechanics interacting, or can it just be a single rule in plaintext whose existence is hilarious?


Both are Welcome!

----------


## The Viscount

The Dysfunctional Rules threads are pretty good for stuff like this.

Some other fun ones. Due to how spot works, everyone has terrible vision and you can't recognize your own family from down the street.

From an old old post, D&D Commoners aren't poor.

That classic of classics, because creatures are identified by Knowledge checks, average people in the D&D world don't necessarily know what the normal fauna like wolves or bears are. They also aren't necessarily able to distinguish a human from non-human.

----------


## Doctor Despair

> That classic of classics, because creatures are identified by Knowledge checks, average people in the D&D world don't necessarily know what the normal fauna like wolves or bears are. They also aren't necessarily able to distinguish a human from non-human.


Even a single rank in Knowledge Nature would solve that though, assuming the person takes 10

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Even a single rank in Knowledge Nature would solve that though, assuming the person takes 10


But commoners don't have any of the Knowledge (X) skills as class skills. So that's a hefty investment with their 2+INT skill points, making it so a commoner who _does_ know how to distinguish a wolf from his sheep is also worse at just about everything else they do. And if you're trying to distinguish that wolf from the sheep in the moment...can you really take 10 (since you're under stress)?

----------


## Tzardok

You do know that people can roll untrained knowledge checks as long as the DC is 10 or lower (so called general knowledge)? I would assume that the common races and animals are covered by that.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> You do know that people can roll untrained knowledge checks as long as the DC is 10 or lower (so called general knowledge)? I would assume that the common races and animals are covered by that.


Standard DC is 10+CR. Since a wolf is not CR 0, you can't roll an untrained knowledge check.

Yes, that's bear lore.

Edit: and even more absurdly, since CR scales with level, a commoner can't generally tell you who the mayor of their village is. The mayor is not CR 0, and without ranks in Knowledge (Local)...

A citizen could watch the king's champion demolish someone in the arena, cheer him on...and then be completely unable to tell you anything about them. Because he's high CR, and they don't have enough ranks in Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Nobility) to have a chance.

----------


## Wildstag

> That classic of classics, because creatures are identified by Knowledge checks, average people in the D&D world don't necessarily know what the normal fauna like wolves or bears are. They also aren't necessarily able to distinguish a human from non-human.


That actually makes sense though. There's a lot of people out there that just assume spread misinformation about predators in general, such as that wolves will kill sheep and just leave their body to rot instead of eating it. Because of such rumors, a lot of people untrained in Knowledge: Nature could be expected to only have misinformation, such as that the wolves are four feet tall at the shoulder and prey upon men and women gleefully, or that a bear can't run well downhill. 

Or, to use a fun example from Community, "the city defines a 'dog' as any living entity with four legs and a tail. So raccoons, bears, mountain lions, mice, these are all just different sizes of dog"; people will justify just about anything as a "mountain lion", even large house cats or bobcats. The city of Boulder famously had issues with that back in the 90s (described in the book "The Beast In The Garden"). 

Or alternatively, the settlers of Utah classified any wild canine as wolves, with smaller "wolves" being 'plains wolves' and larger specimens being 'timber' or 'mountain wolves'. What this ended up doing was equating coyotes with wolves. 

It takes people actually trained in such knowledge to sift through rumors to glean truth. That's what ranks in Knowledge represent. 

On a separate note though, I'd like to pull from my recent entry to the Iron Chef competition and say that the Mountain Rage alternate class feature for Goliath Barbarians is bizarrely worded. See below.




> When he rages, his size category increases to Large. (Although his size category increases by one step, the goliath barbarian's height only increases by a foot or so and his mass only increases by about 30-40%, so his equipment still fits normally.) This change increases the barbarian's space and reach to 10 feet and applies a -1 penalty on attack rolls and to AC. However, he does not gain additional benefits on weapon size and grapple checks, since he already has them from his powerful build ability.


The way I read it, it has two lines in favor of just making the character Large, and one in favor of "increase by one step". So a non-medium character that takes Stoneblessed (Goliath) into Goliath Barbarian could potentially shrink (if bigger than large) or grow to "Large" while still only gaining 30-40% mass and one foot in height. It's a pretty funny read. 

And for an honorary mention, Vigilante was never fixed in the errata, so I like to believe that the Vigilante's misprint is a hard and fast rule. I love the idea of a Ring of Wizardry 3 giving Vigilante 66 3rd level spells per day.

----------


## loky1109

Mountain rage? Some intellectual swarm (for example hellwasp) with stounblessed-3 and Goliath barbarian-1.
10*10 ft square with 5000 large creatures inside.
And they all can inhabit body of single small creature. )))

----------


## Tzardok

> Standard DC is 10+CR. Since a wolf is not CR 0, you can't roll an untrained knowledge check.
> 
> Yes, that's bear lore.
> 
> Edit: and even more absurdly, since CR scales with level, a commoner can't generally tell you who the mayor of their village is. The mayor is not CR 0, and without ranks in Knowledge (Local)...
> 
> A citizen could watch the king's champion demolish someone in the arena, cheer him on...and then be completely unable to tell you anything about them. Because he's high CR, and they don't have enough ranks in Knowledge (Local) or Knowledge (Nobility) to have a chance.


That's not standard. Nowhere in the Player's Handbook is that mentioned (in fact, it doesn't mention at all how much info you get for whatever DC). Just because later books (I think it started with MM4) decided to make their predefined skill checks depended on hit dice doesn't mean that you need to do the same. And as wolves, your king and so on are common knowledge, they get common knowledge DCs. Apply a bit of common sense, please.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> That's not standard. Nowhere in the Player's Handbook is that mentioned (in fact, it doesn't mention at all how much info you get for whatever DC). Just because later books (I think it started with MM4) decided to make their predefined skill checks depended on hit dice doesn't mean that you need to do the same. And as wolves, your king and so on are common knowledge, they get common knowledge DCs. Apply a bit of common sense, please.


From the SRD:

"In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."

So it's worse than I remembered. 10 + HD, not 10 + CR.

So a commoner _by RAW_ can't know useful information about _their mother in law_[1].

And note, RAW and common sense aren't to be spoken of in the same sentence. Which is one reason that I think an emphasis on RAW is utterly silly and pointless. But good for making jokes.

*Spoiler: Ruining the joke*
Show


[1] the joke here being that the mother in law is a monster

----------


## ShurikVch

> From the SRD:
> 
> "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."
> 
> So it's worse than I remembered. 10 + HD, not 10 + CR.


You wasn't incorrect: rules were changed closer to the end of 3.5 era, and - say - _Monster Manual V_ already listed it as "10 + CR"

----------


## Powerdork

> From the SRD:
> 
> "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."


The page reference in _Player's Handbook_ for this line, by the way, is 78, in the Check line for the Knowledge skill.

----------


## Wildstag

> That's not standard. Nowhere in the Player's Handbook is that mentioned (in fact, it doesn't mention at all how much info you get for whatever DC). Just because later books (I think it started with MM4) decided to make their predefined skill checks depended on hit dice doesn't mean that you need to do the same. And as wolves, your king and so on are common knowledge, they get common knowledge DCs. Apply a bit of common sense, please.


It's actually mentioned in the PHB. In 3.5, on page 78, under the subheader "*Check:*" It also covers how much info you get for whatever DC. It's one piece of useful information plus one piece per five points you beat the DC by. It doesn't describe "useful information", but hopefully your GM can use common sense.




> In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.


The name of the King would be common knowledge. The existence of wolves, and that they eat meat, and that they look like large dogs is common knowledge. What they eat (specifically, some populations prey primarily upon elk, others on bison, and others still on caribou), how often, and how they hunt would not be common knowledge. What the king's childhood was like and the king's appearance would not likely be common knowledge.

P.S. And ninja'd on the citation. dang.

----------


## Mark Hall

I like that you can drown someone to heal them.

Drowning sets someone's HP to 0. So, if they are below 0, you can drown them a bit, and they'll heal.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> From the SRD:
> 
> "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."
> 
> So it's worse than I remembered. 10 + HD, not 10 + CR.
> 
> So a commoner _by RAW_ can't know useful information about _their mother in law_[1].
> 
> And note, RAW and common sense aren't to be spoken of in the same sentence. Which is one reason that I think an emphasis on RAW is utterly silly and pointless. But good for making jokes.
> ...


Cracked open the player's handbook:




> In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.


Every creature in the game has HD, even if it's just a fraction. 1/4 HD is still more than 0 HD, which means the DC is higher than 10 (by a fraction). Very technically speaking, while the skill description says this is the DC to "identify monsters", what it says is that hitting the DC gets you a bit of useful info about the monster. Speaking of things the average commoner can't do, though:

Profession skill is about making money working as X. This is separate from the craft skill, where you take raw materials and work on them to make them into something more valuable. This means that while Profession (chef) is definitely a thing, Craft (Cooking) is how you make non-raw food by RAW. And craft is a trained only skill. Craft doesn't even have the "DC 10 can be attempted untrained" rule the way Knowledge has, so you're just SOL if you're not ranked. Let's see how fast different first-level people can make certain meals:

*Spoiler: Craft (Cooking)*
Show

Int scales from 3-18 (not including leveling or age). That means modifiers range from -4 to +4.

Ranks scale from 1-4. If you have fewer than 1 rank, you can't even try to cook.

Skill Focus gives +3 if you have it.

Masterwork tools give +2 if you have them.

Apprentice feat gives +2 if you have it (and also makes things cheaper).

Guild membership is +2 if you have it (as well as cheaper materials).

Specialized trait gives +1 if you have it.

All told, bonuses range from -3 to +18. I'm sure I missed something, but that's a nice bonus range. Let's see how they make various "day worth of meals for one person" you might find at a tavern. I'm assuming the DC is just high enough that they hit it when taking 10. Here's how long it takes various bonuses to make meals of various quality.

(time stamps is [hours]:[minutes]:[seconds])

Bonus
Poor
Common
Good

-3
1:25:42
3:25:42
5:42:51

-2
0:52:30
2:37:30
4:22:30

-1
0:41:28
2:04:26
3:27:24

+0
0:33:36
1:40:48
2:48:00

+1
0:27:46
1:23:18
2:18:50

+2
0:23:20
1:10:00
1:56:40

+3
0:19:52
0:59:38
1:39:24

+4
0:17:08
0:51:25
1:25:42

+5
0:14:56
0:44:48
1:14:40

+6
0:13:07
0:39:22
1:05:37

+7
0:11:37
0:34:52
0:58:07

+8
0:10:22
0:31:06
0:51:51

+9
0:09:18
0:27:55
0:46:32

+10
0:08:24
0:25:12
0:42:00

+11
0:07:37
0:22:51
0:38:05

+12
0:06:56
0:20:49
0:34:42

+13
0:06:21
0:19:03
0:31:45

+14
0:05:50
0:17:30
0:29:10

+15
0:05:22
0:16:07
0:25:52

+16
0:04:58
0:14:54
0:24:51

+17
0:04:36
0:13:49
0:23:02

+18
0:04:17
0:12:51
0:21:25





Housewife cooking for self, husband, and three kids needs meals for five. 4 ranks, skill focus, average Int, specialization trait, masterwork tools handed down through the family...+10 total. That makes 400 sp/week and she needs to make 25 sp worth of food (well, if they're equivalent of good tavern meals). That takes 1/16th of a week's work, or exactly 3.5 hours. Three and a half hours for a homemaker to cook a great meal for her whole family? That sounds right on target. This speed actually fits crafting times better than it does for crafting most items. Cooking might be what they based the craft rules on. "If crafting is faster than that, people can make feasts in minutes! Can't have that!"  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Telonius

Not exactly RAW, but the Dead Levels article had this gem:




> The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.


In the DMG, the "No sense of Humor" personality trait (p. 128) always gets a chuckle from me.

----------


## The Viscount

I've always liked that demons such as the babau can make _darkness_ that they can't see through.

----------


## Doctor Despair

> I've always liked that demons such as the babau can make _darkness_ that they can't see through.


They just have an inherent sense of fairness. They may be chaotic, but that doesn't mean they have to be rude.

----------


## Wildstag

It's kinda funny to me, but Nonverbal Spell was a feat created for the "I swear I won't ever talk" Buomman race.

Anyone can take it though, so the feat exists for those that just want to scream spells into existence. You can just scream Power Word Kill and someone dies. Combine that with Eschew Materials, and you can basically have a caster that gesticulates wildly and roars their spells. 

Per Races of the Dragon, kobolds can metabolize dirt and shells. It says nothing about the long-term health effects of such a diet, so technically a dirt-farming kobold could be useful.

----------


## Azuresun

> From the SRD:
> 
> "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monsters HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster."
> 
> So it's worse than I remembered. 10 + HD, not 10 + CR.
> 
> So a commoner _by RAW_ can't know useful information about _their mother in law_[1].


It also means a newly hatched wyrmling will be far more recognisable that Karnauth The Legendary, ancient red dragon scourge upon these lands since time immemorial.  :Small Big Grin: 

I quite liked the one where you are categorically forbidden to use item creation feats while raging.

----------


## sreservoir

> I like that you can drown someone to heal them.
> 
> Drowning sets someone's HP to 0. So, if they are below 0, you can drown them a bit, and they'll heal.


Doesn't make much of a difference, of course, since there's also no RAW way to prevent the subsequent death.

----------


## Crake

Keep in mind the rule for knowledge checks does say *in general*. There is plenty of room for adjustment there based on circumstance, and it's certainly acceptable for a DM to say the DC for merely recognizing a creature is lower than that DC, while meeting the DC still allows the "useful piece of information" part.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I like that you can drown someone to heal them.
> 
> Drowning sets someone's HP to 0. So, if they are below 0, you can drown them a bit, and they'll heal.





> Doesn't make much of a difference, of course, since there's also no RAW way to prevent the subsequent death.


Apparently, dry drowning really exists (at least, in-game)


About the Knowledge rules:



> _Monster Manual V_ offers a table of lore with each monster's entry. That lore can be gleaned by a character who makes an appropriate Knowledge check. The baseline DC to identify a monster and remember one bit of information about its special abilities or vulnerabilities is equal to 10 + the monster's CR. (This is a change from the description of the Knowledge skill, PH 78.) As can be seen on individual tables in the monster entries, every 5 points by which the check result exceeds the DC yields another piece of information. Information specific to the creature, such as its type of damage reduction, spell-like abilities, or immunities, comes with higher check results.
> The preceding rule addresses specific creatures well, but more can to be said about creatures of general types. Consider the adaru demon (page 20) as an example. It's a CR 10 creature. Identifying it specifically requires a successful DC 20 Knowledge (the planes) check. However, since lowly CR 2 demons such as the dretch are out there, sharing outsider and tanar'ri traits with the adaru, it's reasonable to assume that identifying those outsider and tanar'ri traits is a relatively easy task.
> Except when otherwise noted, an appropriate and successful DC 15 Knowledge check reveals all of a creature's type and subtype traits as defined in the glossary. This often includes information about energy resistance or various immunities. For instance, a DC 15 Knowledge (arcana) check reveals that dragons are hard to kill (12-sided HD) and resilient (all good saves). They have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision, and they are immune to _sleep_ effects and paralysis effects. They eat, sleep, and breathe.

----------


## AvatarVecna

DM is always within their rights to set the DC wherever they please. The fact that the wiggle room explicitly exists doesn't change the fact that the wiggle room isn't explicitly defined, so the basic DCs are what we have to work with. The thread isn't "RAW problems even the DM can't solve" because if it was, the thread would have no examples at all.  :Small Tongue: 




> Apparently, dry drowning really exists (at least, in-game)
> 
> 
> About the Knowledge rules:


That is definitely a useful caveat about additional basic info somebody can get with a knowledge check. It's still DC 15 tho, which puts it out of the range of an untrained person.

----------


## White Blade

> The Dysfunctional Rules threads are pretty good for stuff like this.
> 
> Some other fun ones. Due to how spot works, everyone has terrible vision and you can't recognize your own family from down the street.
> 
> From an old old post, D&D Commoners aren't poor.
> 
> That classic of classics, because creatures are identified by Knowledge checks, average people in the D&D world don't necessarily know what the normal fauna like wolves or bears are. They also aren't necessarily able to distinguish a human from non-human.


I think the distance penalties for listen are a sign that nearly everyone in D&D needs hearing aids. By raw you need to make DC 10 check to understand what someone is saying within ten feet of you, and the DC goes up by one for every ten feet. You can't hear an _active battle_ across a football field.

D&D Commoners aren't poor isn't so much ha-ha funny, although I think it's pretty fun to point out how _advanced_ the healing of D&D is and also how _dangerous_ the diseases in setting are. IRL, even quite contagious diseases don't usually strike people into bedrest in 5-7 business days. But Cackle Fever, Shakes, and Slimy Doom will either kill you or put you in a coma within a few days and they all have saves a commoner is unlikely to make. In 3.5, communities without two trained healers are likely to lose half their population if any disease rolls through town but ones _with_ two are basically unstoppable, because even a Heal 4 + skill focus (Heal) means nobody's dying of anything short of an attack from hell.

----------


## Bavarian itP

> Edit: and even more absurdly, since CR scales with level, a commoner can't generally tell you who the mayor of their village is. The mayor is not CR 0, and without ranks in Knowledge (Local)...


It also means that it's easier to recognize a Magmin (whatever that is) than the freaking Tarrasque.

----------


## Telonius

> It also means that it's easier to recognize a Magmin (whatever that is) than the freaking Tarrasque.


"What do you suppose that is?"

"Oh, that? Well, looks like a Juvenile Red Dragon."

"Ah, cool! And what's that colossal, red, fire-breathing, scaly thing behind it?"

"... no clue."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> "What do you suppose that is?"
> 
> "Oh, that? Well, looks like a Juvenile Red Dragon."
> 
> "Ah, cool! And what's that colossal, red, fire-breathing, scaly thing behind it?"
> 
> "... no clue."


And it gets worse (by RAW). That 1/8 HD thing a wizard cooked up last Tuesday and is now showing to the world? Anyone with any training in the appropriate Knowledge skill can tell you _lots_ about it, its habits, etc. The Great Wyrm dragon that has demanded tribute in princesses for the last umpteen generations? Almost impossible for any but the best to have any clue about it. Color (despite flying in for its prize every 10 years)? No clue. Habits? Wants? Yeah, totally unknown.

Note that this is even true (by RAW, although this is disregarded by any sane DM) if the character making the check _has been interacting with the creature continually for decades_. Because the only way to know if you know something is to make the check, and failure means you never knew it. Heck, _the dragon themselves can fail the check to know about themselves_ (again, by RAW, even though this is absolutely absurd). What do I eat again? No clue.

And as someone grows up and gets more powerful and more famous...they get less-well-known and less knowable.

Bear lore is one reason why these fixed-by-HD/CR DCs to know things is silly. Rarity/obscurity and combat power are completely decoupled at the universe level, and DC should reflect the former, not the latter.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> I quite liked the one where you are categorically forbidden to use item creation feats while raging.


Are there any magic items that require raging as a prereq?

----------


## Telonius

> And it gets worse (by RAW). That 1/8 HD thing a wizard cooked up last Tuesday and is now showing to the world? Anyone with any training in the appropriate Knowledge skill can tell you _lots_ about it, its habits, etc. The Great Wyrm dragon that has demanded tribute in princesses for the last umpteen generations? Almost impossible for any but the best to have any clue about it. Color (despite flying in for its prize every 10 years)? No clue. Habits? Wants? Yeah, totally unknown.


That one _almost_ makes sense, if you consider it along with the Spot check rules. You'd have to get close enough to see it, which leaves you in much greater danger of being eaten by it.

----------


## Wildstag

There's always that classic DMG quote (pg 41, under "Experience Penalties")(emphasis mine)...




> While awards can be used to encourage behavior, penalties don't serve to discourage bad behavior. They usually onlt lead to arguments and anger. *If a player behaves in a way you don't want him to behave, talk to him about it. If he continues, stop playing with him.*


By RAW, you HAVE to stop playing with problem players.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

> Prone
> The character is on the ground.


That's about as explicit as you can get. There are special rules for what happens if you trip a flying character... but none for tripping a _swimming_ character.

By RAW they rocket towards the nearest "ground" surface, travelling the intervening distance instantly. Whether this counts ship decks, the ocean floor, or only dry land, the results are likely to be hilarious.

----------


## The Viscount

I like to imagine that the penalty to ranged attacks is because the character is prone in the dictionary sense (face down) so have to shoot through their legs or something.

----------


## Jervis

A creature with Jotunbrood that changes into a creature with swallow whole can be tiny and still eat a medium creature alive.

----------


## Jervis

> And it gets worse (by RAW). That 1/8 HD thing a wizard cooked up last Tuesday and is now showing to the world? Anyone with any training in the appropriate Knowledge skill can tell you _lots_ about it, its habits, etc. The Great Wyrm dragon that has demanded tribute in princesses for the last umpteen generations? Almost impossible for any but the best to have any clue about it. Color (despite flying in for its prize every 10 years)? No clue. Habits? Wants? Yeah, totally unknown.
> 
> Note that this is even true (by RAW, although this is disregarded by any sane DM) if the character making the check _has been interacting with the creature continually for decades_. Because the only way to know if you know something is to make the check, and failure means you never knew it. Heck, _the dragon themselves can fail the check to know about themselves_ (again, by RAW, even though this is absolutely absurd). What do I eat again? No clue.
> 
> And as someone grows up and gets more powerful and more famous...they get less-well-known and less knowable.
> 
> Bear lore is one reason why these fixed-by-HD/CR DCs to know things is silly. Rarity/obscurity and combat power are completely decoupled at the universe level, and DC should reflect the former, not the latter.


This is why I think creatures should be easier to identify the higher HD they are but harder to know useful combat related information about.

----------


## InvisibleBison

Crafting things requires raw materials worth 1/3 the price of the thing you're crafting. If you want to craft some flour, the raw material you'd use is grain. Thus, 1 cp of grain can be crafted into 3 cp of flour. Seems straightforward enough - except that 1 cp of grain weighs 1 pound, while 3 cp of flour weighs 1.5 pounds. From this we conclude either that D&D millstones are magical or that D&D flour has a huge amount of grit in it.

On a related note, a D&D setting has no need for farmers. The Survival skill lets you find food for yourself in the wild with a DC 10 check, and you can provide for 1 additional person for every 2 points by which you beat the check. Even a neophyte forager (4 ranks, skill focus) can provide food for three people in addition to herself when she's able to take 10 - a level of food productivity that the real world didn't reach until the early 20th century. An experienced forager can do much better.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This is why I think creatures should be easier to identify the higher HD they are but harder to know useful combat related information about.


In my opinion, "identification" and "combat potential" (ie CR/HD) are completely separate things and don't scale the same at all.

You can have very high HD creatures that are super obscure (most aberrations, things that only exist in one piece of one setting, etc).

You can have very high HD creatures that are super obvious (the arena champion, a god, etc).

You can have very low HD creatures that are super obscure (this one-off thing that was created 35 seconds ago and only exists right here, etc)

You can have very low HD creatures that are super obvious (sheep in Wyoming).

"Difficulty of identification" is entirely a setting thing, and should be based on how common they are in that particular area + how frequently and in-depth they appear in common lore sources. Generally, identifying it should come with a set of basic combat-related information. Ie "It's a wolf, it runs in packs and is a carnivore" vs "it's a leopard, it's a solitary ambush predator". Depending on commonality, I could see even quite a lot of combat information. Everyone knows that the arena favorite uses a vorpal sword named HeadHunter and is immune to XYZ--after all, people have tried that on him in the arena in the last 43 battles!

You should also be able to extract information _without_ identifying the creature, based on some kind of logic/perception-related check after observation. Things like "it's got big heavy plates and lumbers while it moves and big fangs that drip something that makes the ground sizzle. It's probably got a lousy Reflex save, high natural AC (and low touch AC), and extra acid damage on its bite."

----------


## Azuresun

> I think the distance penalties for listen are a sign that nearly everyone in D&D needs hearing aids. By raw you need to make DC 10 check to understand what someone is saying within ten feet of you, and the DC goes up by one for every ten feet. You can't hear an _active battle_ across a football field.


Having listened to my mother trying to get my dad's attention (or vice versa), 3e's system for listening feels very realistic.

And for another one I recall from the dysfunctional rules thread--creating a wand of Identify requires the crafter to drink fifty glasses of wine while making it.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> And for another one I recall from the dysfunctional rules thread--creating a wand of Identify requires the crafter to drink fifty glasses of wine while making it.


That's just standard for any creative venture.

----------


## Azuresun

> That's just standard for any creative venture.


It does explain why Dwarves have a reputation as great craftsmen.

----------


## Wildstag

> Having listened to my mother trying to get my dad's attention (or vice versa), 3e's system for listening feels very realistic.
> 
> And for another one I recall from the dysfunctional rules thread--creating a wand of Identify requires the crafter to drink fifty glasses of wine while making it.


50 glasses of wine, 50 owl feathers, and 5,000 gp worth of pearls. 

I dont think the wine is the tough part.

----------


## Malphegor

Spider-Mans costume exists as a psychoactive skin in MIC. (and I think in the srd too but theyve helpfully removed the description of a red and blue body with white eyes)

That little easter egg broke me a little, as I cant stop occasionally trying to build spiderman now that I know that exists. Its exorbitantly expensive and youre better off with a dragon compendium Thespians Mask to look like youre wearing a full body costume of that sort for cheapish, but now I know its reasonable to rod of ropes swing my way into being a spectacular wall crawler with just items I find it hard to feel like playing normal characters at the moment, as thats just funny.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Spider-Mans costume exists as a psychoactive skin in MIC. (and I think in the srd too but theyve helpfully removed the description of a red and blue body with white eyes)
> 
> That little easter egg broke me a little, as I cant stop occasionally trying to build spiderman now that I know that exists. Its exorbitantly expensive and youre better off with a dragon compendium Thespians Mask to look like youre wearing a full body costume of that sort for cheapish, but now I know its reasonable to rod of ropes swing my way into being a spectacular wall crawler with just items I find it hard to feel like playing normal characters at the moment, as thats just funny.


Pathfinder's vigilante has an archetype called the wildsoul, sort of representing various animal themed superheroes. One of the options is basically Spider-Man's ability set.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Every creature in the game has HD, even if it's just a fraction. 1/4 HD is still more than 0 HD


1. Rounding rules mean all than <1 is count as 0. I mean - no such thing as DC 10½
2. Sentient items are literally "creatures without any HD"





> A creature with Jotunbrood that changes into a creature with swallow whole can be tiny and still eat a medium creature alive.


Corrections:
It's "Jotunbrud"
Swallow Whole:



> If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent held in its mouth (see Improved Grab), it can attempt a new grapple check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature.


Starting a Grapple:



> You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the target is two or more size categories larger than you are.


But - in similar note to the aforementioned: some creatures (such as Ember Spawn, Hoard Scarab, Mind Leech, or Worm of Kyuss) are able to burrow into other creatures
This ability is completely independent of Size category - even by default they already able to burrow into creature of the same size category as they are
But what if this vermin somehow got bigger - say, because of application of Titanic Creature (or Kaiju) template?
They still would be able, by the RAW, to burrow into a creature of any size, and stay inside until either they want out or host is dead
(Also, in case of Symbiotic Creature template, Vermin guest will grant it's burrow SA to the host - even if the host is a dinosaur)

----------


## Jervis

> That's just standard for any creative venture.


So are all wands of identify made by suburban moms?

----------


## AvatarVecna

> 1. Rounding rules mean all than <1 is count as 0. I mean - no such thing as DC 10½
> 2. Sentient items are literally "creatures without any HD"


"Sleep puts NI cats to sleep" is a neat RAW thing too.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> "Sleep puts NI cats to sleep" is a neat RAW thing too.


I suppose that's how low level wizards manage to survive to reach 1st level.

----------


## the_tick_rules

The talismans of ultimate good and evil.  If I remember their RAW correctly if you and the target meet all conditions it is an insta kill on anything.

----------


## Harrow

> Profession skill is about making money working as X. This is separate from the craft skill, where you take raw materials and work on them to make them into something more valuable. This means that while Profession (chef) is definitely a thing, Craft (Cooking) is how you make non-raw food by RAW. And craft is a trained only skill. Craft doesn't even have the "DC 10 can be attempted untrained" rule the way Knowledge has, so you're just SOL if you're not ranked.


Profession is trained only, but Craft is not.

----------


## ShurikVch

Do we count there April Fool things - like the Adamantine Chef PrC, which have such CFs as _Summon Death Salad_ or _Summon Pie Fiend_?
*Spoiler: Pie Fiend*
Show




Or how about some blatant (but never officially corrected) typos - like with the Eye of Gruumsh in _Epic Level Handbook_:



> This lump of rock has a marquis-cut black sapphire set in its center, making it appear similar to a large eye. *Ore legends* claim that the rock is actually the petrified eye of Gruumsh himself, put out ages ago by the elf deity Corellon Larethian. Elven sages scoff at this story, insisting that Corellon destroyed Gruumshs eye completely.
> Nevertheless, the _Eye of Gruumsh_ has great power, particularly in the hands of one of *ore blood*. If possessed by an *ore*, it grants a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength and Charisma, and the *ores* darkvision range is doubled. Nonorcs who possess the _Eye_ gain a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength but take a 2 penalty to Intelligence and Charisma.


*Spoiler: I wonder if it matter which kind of ore...*
Show

----------


## Doctor Despair

In my sig is a thread on the Long Arm of the Law. In there, I discuss a few mechanisms to initiate a grapple from range -- sometimes as far as hundreds of feat away. As per the grapple rules, you would then either immediately move into their square (flying hundreds of feet through the air with blurring speed), or drag them hundreds of feet into your square if you have Improved Grab.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

> "Sleep puts NI cats to sleep" is a neat RAW thing too.


*Obligatory explanation that rounding occurs at the end of the math not the beginning*

I realize you were probably joking, but it was bugging me.

----------


## ShurikVch

> "Sleep puts NI cats to sleep" is a neat RAW thing too.


I know you was joking, but 10' burst would cover no more than 64 cats (unless they're flying - then 68)
Also, damaging spell of similar radius could just kill them (and, likely, wouldn't even take a full round to cast)...

----------


## Doctor Despair

> I know you was joking, but 10' burst would cover no more than 64 cats (unless they're flying - then 68)
> Also, damaging spell of similar radius could just kill them (and, likely, wouldn't even take a full round to cast)...


_Look at Shurik over here wanting to kill 68 cats!_

... although I suppose putting cats to sleep doesn't sound much better to the layman.

----------


## Wildstag

> April Fool things


If we're talking April Fool's jokes, then the "Flaws for Commoners" was a great article in Dragon Magazine, and the one Kobold feat that spontaneously turns you into an elf, but you die soon after because you turn into an elf while hanging out with kobolds (who see you as intruder and kill you).

Alternatively, I'd like to thank bundlesandflows for having actually read the Epic Level Handbook and found this guy a couple years ago.

----------


## Jervis

> If we're talking April Fool's jokes, then the "Flaws for Commoners" was a great article in Dragon Magazine, and the one Kobold feat that spontaneously turns you into an elf, but you die soon after because you turn into an elf while hanging out with kobolds (who see you as intruder and kill you).
> 
> Alternatively, I'd like to thank bundlesandflows for having actually read the Epic Level Handbook and found this guy a couple years ago.


To be fair Elf has its uses. Assuming Flaws are allowed then Dragonwroght + Elf lets you be a Dragon with the Elf subtype assuming you get revived. I have yet to find a good use for this but im sure theres something

----------


## Bavarian itP

> Due to how spot works, everyone has terrible vision and you can't recognize your own family from down the street.


That would explain how this is "indistinguishable from a normal human at distances greater than 30 feet".

----------


## Jervis

> That would explain how this is "indistinguishable from a normal human at distances greater than 30 feet".


*squints* seems legit, 30 feet is basically a mile right?

----------


## hamishspence

> Or how about some blatant (but never officially corrected) typos - like with the Eye of Gruumsh in _Epic Level Handbook_:
> 
> *Spoiler: I wonder if it matter which kind of ore...*
> Show


_My_ copy of the Epic Handbook doesn't have any typos in the Eye of Gruumsh item description.

----------


## ShurikVch

> _My_ copy of the Epic Handbook doesn't have any typos in the Eye of Gruumsh item description.


No disrespect, but did you checked it with magnifying glass?
The "e" may look kinda like "c" (and, considering we already know the text is about orcs and their deity, it's trivially easy to read "ore" as "orc")

----------


## Wildstag

> To be fair Elf has its uses. Assuming Flaws are allowed then Dragonwroght + Elf lets you be a Dragon with the Elf subtype assuming you get revived. I have yet to find a good use for this but im sure theres something


Ah, but its usefulness comes back around, since it can only be selected by mistake.

----------


## Promethean

> ...*Kobold feat that spontaneously turns you into an elf*...


I'm sorry, What?  :Small Confused:

----------


## hamishspence

> No disrespect, but did you checked it with magnifying glass?
> The "e" may look kinda like "c" (and, considering we already know the text is about orcs and their deity, it's trivially easy to read "ore" as "orc")


Yes, I did, and it's unambiguously spelled correctly. Maybe it was a different print run that had the misspelling?

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Yes, I did, and it's unambiguously spelled correctly. Maybe it was a different print run that had the misspelling?


Or maybe it's a bad OCR scan and someone copied/pasted without doing a manual spell-check.

----------


## Jervis

> Ah, but its usefulness comes back around, since it can only be selected by mistake.


You just took a flaw and spent at minimum 1500 GP to come back to life so you can look like an elf, that qualifies as a mistake by any metric




> I'm sorry, What?


Elf

*Prerequisites:* Kobold only, must be selected by mistake

*Benefits:* You are instantaneously Polymorphed into an Elf and killed by other Kobolds (paraphrasing)

As a Raw note the Polymorph effect is a instantaneous duration, meaning it cant be dispelled and lasts forever. If you also selected Dragonwroght youre a elf with the dragon type. Granted you need someone to revive you.

----------


## The Viscount

> That would explain how this is "indistinguishable from a normal human at distances greater than 30 feet".


My favorite for this is the ripper, which says "What first looked like a humanoid figure striding through the nearby alley suddenly appears far too alien to be any human."

----------


## Jervis

> My favorite for this is the ripper, which says "What first looked like a humanoid figure striding through the nearby alley suddenly appears far too alien to be any human."


Ill actually give that one the benefit of the doubt. In a dark ally that could pass for human at a distance. Its vaguely humanoid in shape and full black so on a dark night making out more than its body shape would be difficult

----------


## Bonzai

I always found it hilarious that casting a darkness spell in an area with no light actually improves your ability to see, as it creates shadowy illumination.

----------


## Seward

> But commoners don't have any of the Knowledge (X) skills as class skills. So that's a hefty investment with their 2+INT skill points, making it so a commoner who _does_ know how to distinguish a wolf from his sheep is also worse at just about everything else they do.


Generally Profession skills are supposed to fill that gap.

Profession - Farmer will let him know (without rolling even, unless unwise enough to not be able to make a DC0 check) that a domesticated animal is different from a wild animal, including distinguishing a dog from a wolf given an appropriate spot check.  It will also let him know who he pays taxes to, or owes other services to, which would include anybody who might ask anything of him (mayor and nobility included) plus anybody local who might buy his excess produce, might sell him something he needs and might give him shelter (eg tavern) if his marketplace to sell excess and buy supplies is far enough away to require an overnight stay.   He'll also know all about the local wildlife inclined to eat stuff on his farm (foxes and chickens/eggs, deer and veggie garden, crows and corn etc) although he might not know their proper names, mating habits etc, he will know what he should do to prevent losing his crop and livestock to them, or he'll be a dead farmer next winter from starvation.

A farmer who never has a surplus, can never afford to buy anything, owes no service/taxes to anybody and basically works his plot somehow in isolation.  Although that is more like "profession hermit".  He'll still know his in-laws and other kin, at minimum.

Profession Peasant has a somewhat different mix of skills, depending on the estate (some peasants or serfs or slaves worked on what would be considered collective farms today, with protection from wildlife provided by others, and would have a narrower skillset, but would tend to be stronger in knowing things like which of his many superiors is likely to offer violence, which care if somebody gets hurt, etc)

Kn Nature gives you a chance to know about all animals, and a chance to know something about how they behave in their natural context.  Profession Farmer lets you know how to care for a cow, keep foxes out of your chicken coop and keep ravens from flying off with the eggs and crows from eating your corn before you can harvest.  You also know about seasons and local weather, without needing a survival check etc.




> As a Raw note the Polymorph effect is a instantaneous duration, meaning it cant be dispelled and lasts forever. If you also selected Dragonwroght youre a elf with the dragon type. Granted you need someone to revive you.


Honestly getting baleful polymorph into an Elf would be a great deal for most humanoid races.  Near immortality and not too much mental change. (which brings to mind 1st edition longevity potions.  Power component was Vampire Ichor, Lich Dust or Elf Blood.  Guess who got mugged by wizards wanting to make longevity potions?  3 letter word, begins with "E")

----------


## King of Nowhere

So "where's my cow" by terry pratchett makes sense



> Where's my cow?
> 
> Is that my cow?
> 
> It goes, "Baa!"
> 
> It is a sheep! That's not my cow!


so somebody made a knowledge check to know a cow, and he got a 17. the cow has 4 hit dice, so it's dc 14 to get something, plus 5 for any additional piece of information. So, having gotten only one useful information, the protagonist knows the cow goes MOOOOOO. At some point he sees a bunch of animals he's unable to identify for lack of appropriate knowledge checks, but he still knws that useful bit of information, that the cow goes MOOOOO. so he tries to hear the other animals vocalize, so he can tell they're not cows.  :Small Big Grin: 


but what i find most funny about raw is that the dmg keeps saying left and right that everything is subject to the dm adjudication and common sense, and that most of that stuff is to be treated as loose guidelines, or as help for the dm who's caught off guard and does not know how to continue. And yet a lot of players insist that those rules be followed to the letter and that's how the game is meant to be played

----------


## Jervis

> Honestly getting baleful polymorph into an Elf would be a great deal for most humanoid races.


Elves are animals confirmed.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Elves are animals confirmed.


Uppity animals with their noses in the air who think they're better than everyone else and who have institutionalized racism to the point of extreme xenophobia, and yet are somehow still "Good." Are we _sure_ Corellon Larethian isn't an aspect of The Burning Hate?

----------


## AvatarVecna

> So "where's my cow" by terry pratchett makes sense
> 
> so somebody made a knowledge check to know a cow, and he got a 17. the cow has 4 hit dice, so it's dc 14 to get something, plus 5 for any additional piece of information. So, having gotten only one useful information, the protagonist knows the cow goes MOOOOOO. At some point he sees a bunch of animals he's unable to identify for lack of appropriate knowledge checks, but he still knws that useful bit of information, that the cow goes MOOOOO. so he tries to hear the other animals vocalize, so he can tell they're not cows. 
> 
> 
> but what i find most funny about raw is that the dmg keeps saying left and right that everything is subject to the dm adjudication and common sense, and that most of that stuff is to be treated as loose guidelines, or as help for the dm who's caught off guard and does not know how to continue. And yet a lot of players insist that those rules be followed to the letter and that's how the game is meant to be played


Nobody is saying "if you don't follow the rules in the books, the game police will come arrest you". The reason RAW takes precedent in theoretical forum discussions is because there's never going to be widespread agreement on what a "reasonable DM" would houserule to be the case. RAW discussions are about determining using reading comprehension what would happen if a DM did not houserule the situation. The issue is that when some people say "the game should work like this", they are making a factual statement akin to "if you add 2 and 2, it should add up to 4", and other people are hearing an opinion statement something akin to "if you jump out a window, you should go to jail, because it would be very unfair if you didn't". The second can sound ridiculous depending on the context, but the miscommunication is because the second person thinks the first is advocating to jail people for non-crimes, while the first is really just commenting on what a straightforward reading of the crime rules would indicate occurs to window-jumpers.

----------


## Bohandas

> That's not standard. Nowhere in the Player's Handbook is that mentioned (in fact, it doesn't mention at all how much info you get for whatever DC). Just because later books (I think it started with MM4) decided to make their predefined skill checks depended on hit dice doesn't mean that you need to do the same. And as wolves, your king and so on are common knowledge, they get common knowledge DCs. Apply a bit of common sense, please.


They had a weird obsession with hit dice in 3.5e that got continually worse

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> They had a weird obsession with hit dice in 3.5e that got continually worse


At least they found something to use other than "L-E-V-E-L."

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

That's something pretty interesting in my opinion: that idea that everybody, from an elf to a modron, is a creature which follows the exact same rules. Levels and hit dice are just two faces of the same coin. Every aberration has the same BAB. Anybody can have a class level, provided they're intelligent enough to learn. That was definitely not the case in 4e, where "players" and "monsters" had different rules, and not really in 5e, with legendary actions, resistances and other similar things (also, I think there are way fewer non-humanoid monsters with class levels than in 3.5). In my opinion, that's how you can create a form of tolerance. Not by denying the difference between races, but by acknowledging it and still saying that it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> That's something pretty interesting in my opinion: that idea that everybody, from an elf to a modron, is a creature which follows the exact same rules. Levels and hit dice are just two faces of the same coin. Every aberration has the same BAB. Anybody can have a class level, provided they're intelligent enough to learn. That was definitely not the case in 4e, where "players" and "monsters" had different rules, and not really in 5e, with legendary actions, resistances and other similar things (also, I think there are way fewer non-humanoid monsters with class levels than in 3.5). In my opinion, that's how you can create a form of tolerance. Not by denying the difference between races, but by acknowledging it and still saying that it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things.


Personally I see this as a positive. It meant that you didn't have to learn two entirely separate systems for building characters versus building monsters and NPCs.

----------


## Azuresun

> Personally I see this as a positive. It meant that you didn't have to learn two entirely separate systems for building characters versus building monsters and NPCs.


There were two problems with that.

One is that NPC's don't need the same complexity as a PC if their entire purpose is to fight the party once then die. They barely need it if they're a regular and recurring fleshed-out character.

The other is that all creatures of a type having the same advancement made it very hard to create atypical monsters, such as a warrior fey, and meant that undead needed huge numbers of HD to make up for their hit points and base attack being so bad. You could really see acknowledgement of the problem in later Monster Manuals, with random bonuses to stats and attacks to get the numbers where they needed to be, notes of "this monster always uses Power Attack at -X / +Y", and all undead getting Unholy Toughness to bring their HP up to spec without making them impossible to turn.

----------


## Promethean

On the original topic, because the natural attacks of a creature count as the same source that overcomes their DR, the natural attacks of Alignment-based creatures count as the opposite alignment.

For outsiders this is doubly hilarious because they have alignment subtypes, so a Demon with DR/Lawful has natural attacks that count as Lawful and Chaotic at the same time.

I'm pretty sure there's a demon out there with DR/Lawful or Good, meaning their natural attacks count a Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and Evil all at the same time.

*Edit:* It appears I was wrong, but that is itself kind of hilarious. That means two golems with DR/adamantine can't overcome each other's DR.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> There were two problems with that.
> 
> One is that NPC's don't need the same complexity as a PC if their entire purpose is to fight the party once then die. They barely need it if they're a regular and recurring fleshed-out character.
> 
> The other is that all creatures of a type having the same advancement made it very hard to create atypical monsters, such as a warrior fey, and meant that undead needed huge numbers of HD to make up for their hit points and base attack being so bad. You could really see acknowledgement of the problem in later Monster Manuals, with random bonuses to stats and attacks to get the numbers where they needed to be, notes of "this monster always uses Power Attack at -X / +Y", and all undead getting Unholy Toughness to bring their HP up to spec without making them impossible to turn.


These are both solvable problems. The first can be solved by having a bunch of 90% complete NPCs included in the books somewhere that the DM can grab and quickly customize, so that it doesn't take a lot of effort to create a 1-scene character. The second can be solved by ditching type-based hit dice in favor of role-based monster classes.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> _adjusts glasses_ Um, actually...
> With the exception of /magic and /epic DR, basically no DR lets natural weapons overcome similar DR. Demons with DR 10/cold iron and good can't overcome /cold iron DR any more than they can overcome /good DR.
> Not sure this changes your analysis, but the more you know.


Thus spoke GWG.

----------


## Gemini476

Yeah, /magic and /epic being different from the others is pretty explicit.

e.g. MM p.307



> Some monsters are vulnerable to piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage. For example, skeletons have damage reduction 5/bludgeoning. When hit with slashing or piercing weapons, the damage dealt by each attack is reduced by 5 points, but bludgeoning weapons deal full damage.  
> [...]
> A few very powerful monsters, such as the solar and the tarrasque, are vulnerable only to epic weapons; that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.


Note also that [Good] et. al. are a bit special, since they also apply to weapons that they carry - which is important, because the Balor's DR 15/cold iron and good needs the weapon to be cold iron _and_ good. (The Babau's DR 10/cold iron or good is an _or_, though.)

On that note, the Outsiders in the Monster Manual are mildly notable for having weapons that are just, well, normal weapons. Magical, sure, but they're not made out of cold iron or silver or anything. You'd kind of expect them to if the Blood War's still raging.

In fact, let's check it!

* Cold Iron weapons in the Monster Manual:*
Hound Archon Hero (+2 cold iron greatsword)
Half-Celestial 9th-Level Human Paladin (10 cold iron arrows)
Harpy Archer (10 cold iron arrows)

* Silver weapons in the Monster Manual:*
9th+ Level Githyanki (Githyanki Silver Swords)
Half-Celestial 9th-Level Human Paladin (10 silvered arrows)
Harpy Archer (10 silver arrows)

Putting aside the Harpy (a 7th-level fighter with a +1 frost composite longbow), what makes this more puzzling is that Chain Devils, Horned Devils, and Pit Fiends all have Regeneration that can only be beaten by (good-aligned) silvered weapons, meaning that you'd kind of expect them to be a bit of a problem on the front lines of the blood war.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

> Putting aside the Harpy (a 7th-level fighter with a +1 frost composite longbow), what makes this more puzzling is that Chain Devils, Horned Devils, and Pit Fiends all have Regeneration that can only be beaten by (good-aligned) silvered weapons, meaning that you'd kind of expect them to be a bit of a problem on the front lines of the blood war.


Perhaps so they can more easily capture enemy outsiders, since slaying them will usually just send them back to their home plane?

----------


## hamishspence

> On the original topic, because the natural attacks of a creature count as the same source that overcomes their DR, the natural attacks of Alignment-based creatures count as the opposite alignment.
> 
> For outsiders this is doubly hilarious because they have alignment subtypes, so a Demon with DR/Lawful has natural attacks that count as Lawful and Chaotic at the same time.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there's a demon out there with DR/Lawful or Good, meaning their natural attacks count a Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and Evil all at the same time.



Where's that stated?

As far as I can tell, having a DR/x does not _automatically_ come with the ability to overcome DR/x, _as well as_ Alignment Strike.

For an obvious example, take an Inevitable - it has DR/chaotic, and it has the Alignment subtype: Lawful.

That means that it automatically overcomes DR/lawful - not that it automatically overcomes DR/chaotic because it has DR/chaotic itself.

An inevitable has no particular vulnerability to _another inevitable_'s attacks.

Only DR/magic and DR/epic come with "magic strike" and "epic strike"




> _Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
> 
> A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons; that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction._


DR/lawful doesn't _come with_ "lawful strike" and DR/chaotic doesn't _come with_ "chaotic strike" unless there's something in the rules that I'm missing.

----------


## Vaern

Having damage reduction does not inherently allow you to bypass damage reduction of the same type, except magic and epic. 
Creatures with an alignment subtype deal aligned damage matching their subtype. An inevitable does not ignore DR/chaotic for having the same type of damage reduction, but it _does_ bypass DR/lawful for having the lawful subtype.

That being said, I feel like there _is_ something in the back of my mind about creatures ignoring damage reduction of creatures of the same kind... Like, a vampire could ignore the DR of another vampire, but it would not be able to bypass the DR of a werewolf without an actual silver weapon. I'm sure I'm just misremembering something, though, or maybe it was an on-the-spot house rule that came up at one table. Either way, I'm fairly sure I've heard a rule similar to this before, but I can't find anything to actually back it up.

----------


## Seward

Bag of holding can store a creature for 10 minutes before it runs out of air.

Doesn't matter if it is a turtle or a troll, 10 minutes is what you get, assuming you fall under weight limit.

Probably doesn't matter if it is 100 turtles or 1 troll.  Each gets 10 minutes.


As the arcanist tells the frustrated druid "hold breath doesn't matter either.  You get 10 minutes.  That's how it works".

----------


## loky1109

> Bag of holding can store a creature for 10 minutes before it runs out of air.
> 
> Doesn't matter if it is a turtle or a troll, 10 minutes is what you get, assuming you fall under weight limit.
> 
> Probably doesn't matter if it is 100 turtles or 1 troll.  Each gets 10 minutes.
> 
> 
> As the arcanist tells the frustrated druid "hold breath doesn't matter either.  You get 10 minutes.  That's how it works".


You are not right. 100 or 1 does matter.
10 minutes for one creature.

----------


## Seward

> You are not right. 100 or 1 does matter.
> 10 minutes for one creature.


The SRD begs to differ. Emphasis in Bold is mine.



> If living *creatures* are placed within the bag,* they* can survive for up to 10 minutes, after which time *they* suffocate.


Wording is identical in Pathfinder SRD as well.

My wife and I speculated that the bag was designed to give each creature a specific number of breaths of air and attach that air to each individual creature in the extra-D space.  I assume it actually works for 10 minutes of normal breathing and then holding breath rules apply, but that isn't actually what it says.  For all we know, after 10 minutes a vacuum forms that sucks all the air out of you.

----------


## loky1109

My mistake.

----------


## Scots Dragon

That's actually just how vacuums work in Dungeons & Dragons. Check out Spelljammer sometime.

----------


## ShurikVch

I'm seriously puzzled by the lack of facing rules: no matter from which side you're coming to the creature, it's always supposed to be laser-guided on you - even if it's sleeping. And it's get weirder in case of multiple attackers...

Not, exactly, RAW - but it's deeply satisfying to know: according to the novels, all the "older" versions of spells - from previous editions (or even just earlier books of the same edition) - are not quantumed into oblivion, but still present in the world, and could be found (or re-researched) 




> That's actually just how vacuums work in Dungeons & Dragons. Check out Spelljammer sometime.


No, it's not how vacuum works in Dungeons & Dragons:



> The moonlet has few defenses. The dangers of the void are enough to keep enemies at bay. Unless the moonlet is approached when it has already entered the atmosphere - at which point it is almost too late - characters must contend with the hazardous environment. After 3 rounds of exposure to the void, a living creature must make a successful DC 20 Constitution check or suffer excruciating pain, becoming stunned and remaining so until it returns to the atmosphere. Creatures that fail the check by 5 or more fall unconscious.
> Creatures that require air are also subject to suffocation. Attempting to hold ones breath requires a DC 15 Constitution check every round. The DC increases by 1 each round. Even on a successful check, the creature takes 1 point of Constitution damage from the pressure. On a failed check, or when the creature stops holding its breath, it falls unconscious on the following round, and its hit points fall to 0. On the next round, the creature drops to 1 hit points and the round after, its hit points fall to 10 and the creature dies.

----------


## Morphic tide

Everyone loves going Abjurant Champion. Entry is a bit awkward for full casters, though, since you have to reach +5 BAB. Enter Spellsword from Complete Warrior, which takes the usual "proper" Martial proficiency set that can be handled by a level of all sorts of classes, which asks for BAB +4 and has full BAB. Every even-numbered level loses a caster level, but it's an open level to mix progression.

The thing of it is that Spellsword, due to the way its worded, has a _hilariously ridiculous_ use case for Sorcerers in particular: One of its features, at 4th level, is essentially Move Action Smiting Spell... Except the way it's worded is not _casting_ the spell, you simply _expend the slot_ as a Move Action to set a charge that lasts for 8 hours. So a Sorcerer no longer suffers the Full Round metamagic. And, since it says nothing about components, and is specifically not actually casting the spell, it seems you can technically ignore them. Obviously an insane reading, but RAW can get stupid.

Furthermore, regardless of the spell's original properties, it affects only the thing next hit with it. Stick a Fireball in there, it only hits the target, no risk of exploding in your face. There are no restrictions on what you can put in it, too. You can stick Mage Armor in there to whack somebody with an hour/level buff. You can Awaken a construct by making a Standard Action attack with a club. No need for a brain, no need for 5k XP, no need for eight hours, _one round_ and _zero cost_. And since it's just _target_, you can also Create Undead by whacking a valid corpse.

Even without the cost removal reading, it's completely inarguable that it _absolutely and without exception_ sets the spell's effective casting time to a Move Action, and _absolutely and without exception_ sets the target to what you hit. So it's still one round instead of eight hours to Awaken a Construct and still cheats targeting by setting to "Whatever I hit with this weapon next". May even force creature-oriented effects on objects and vice versa, to Very Strange results.

----------


## liquidformat

> Standard DC is 10+CR. Since a wolf is not CR 0, you can't roll an untrained knowledge check.


I am cracking myself up at the idea of a couple farmers being like, why do my sheep keep eating each other? as he watches a pack of wolves killing and eating his flock of sheep.



> ...although I think it's pretty fun to point out how _advanced_ the healing of D&D is and also how _dangerous_ the diseases in setting are. IRL, even quite contagious diseases don't usually strike people into bedrest in 5-7 business days. But Cackle Fever, Shakes, and Slimy Doom will either kill you or put you in a coma within a few days and they all have saves a commoner is unlikely to make. In 3.5, communities without two trained healers are likely to lose half their population if any disease rolls through town but ones _with_ two are basically unstoppable, because even a Heal 4 + skill focus (Heal) means nobody's dying of anything short of an attack from hell.


I mean if you aren't looking at modern times even if you are just going back around 100 years this seems pretty reasonable. The plague would go through cities killing off 80-90% of the population and even colds and flu could be quite deadly. The only unreasonable thing is how well the heal skill works. If we go back to the dark ages it was thought that a lump of horse dung would be very effective at healing wounds at one time...




> Crafting things requires raw materials worth 1/3 the price of the thing you're crafting. If you want to craft some flour, the raw material you'd use is grain. Thus, 1 cp of grain can be crafted into 3 cp of flour. Seems straightforward enough - except that 1 cp of grain weighs 1 pound, while 3 cp of flour weighs 1.5 pounds. From this we conclude either that D&D millstones are magical or that D&D flour has a huge amount of grit in it.


I mean even in the 19th century it was a very common practice for flour to be adulterated so as to get more bang for your buck. Using white spackle was quite common and normally people preferred the look and weight of bread made with it. There is a reason that the baker was included with the butcher and candlestick maker in the nursery rhyme about drowning the corrupt people in society... 




> On a related note, a D&D setting has no need for farmers. The Survival skill lets you find food for yourself in the wild with a DC 10 check, and you can provide for 1 additional person for every 2 points by which you beat the check. Even a neophyte forager (4 ranks, skill focus) can provide food for three people in addition to herself when she's able to take 10 - a level of food productivity that the real world didn't reach until the early 20th century. An experienced forager can do much better.


Yeah this one has always rubbed me the wrong way as someone who does a lot of outdoors stuff and is quite knowledgeable about survival, all the DCs are way to easy and don't take into account things like not being familiar with the flora and fauna of an area or climate...

----------


## Wildstag

> Yeah this one has always rubbed me the wrong way as someone who does a lot of outdoors stuff and is quite knowledgeable about survival, all the DCs are way to easy and don't take into account things like not being familiar with the flora and fauna of an area or climate...


Eh, it's not really that hard to find edible food, and that's all the skill check needs. It's not like you roll a Survival check expecting poached eggs and smoked fowl. A basic roll gets you basic food. Everything else would be a Craft (? I think I saw that up thread) roll.

Finding edible food is simple provided you have a pot and a fire. First if it's hostile to touch, don't eat it. Secondly, seep it (make plant-tea). If you don't get sick from that, then try it boiled. You probably get a bit of calories. Lastly, if boiled it does not make you sick, maybe try cooking it other ways.

And terrestrial animal meat is generally simple enough. Cook it well done and consume. You get the energy but it's not great. 

Like, I could easily eat a lot of the desert plants near me, though there'd be _some_ prep work. It's just a matter of drinking the leeched-plant-water just a few sips to test if it gives me the runs. From there it's just a task of finding enough. 

It's the "Survival" skill, not the "Thrive-al" skill.

----------


## Bohandas

> Or how about some blatant (but never officially corrected) typos - like with the Eye of Gruumsh in _Epic Level Handbook_:
> 
> *Spoiler: I wonder if it matter which kind of ore...*
> Show


That image would be more ridiculous if D&D did not already have earth elementals as popular monsters

----------


## liquidformat

> Eh, it's not really that hard to find edible food, and that's all the skill check needs. It's not like you roll a Survival check expecting poached eggs and smoked fowl. A basic roll gets you basic food. Everything else would be a Craft (? I think I saw that up thread) roll.
> 
> Finding edible food is simple provided you have a pot and a fire. First if it's hostile to touch, don't eat it. Secondly, seep it (make plant-tea). If you don't get sick from that, then try it boiled. You probably get a bit of calories. Lastly, if boiled it does not make you sick, maybe try cooking it other ways.
> 
> And terrestrial animal meat is generally simple enough. Cook it well done and consume. You get the energy but it's not great. 
> 
> Like, I could easily eat a lot of the desert plants near me, though there'd be _some_ prep work. It's just a matter of drinking the leeched-plant-water just a few sips to test if it gives me the runs. From there it's just a task of finding enough. 
> 
> It's the "Survival" skill, not the "Thrive-al" skill.


That right there is a great way to kill yourself; let's ignore mushrooms since that is its own can of worms and there are mushrooms out there that micrograms of can kill you.

For starters being sick in a survival situation is often in and of itself deadly; if you are incapable of going out to get more food or even worse stuck in one spot because stuffs coming out of both ends you aren't going to last long. Furthermore the risk of poisoning yourself with highly toxic plants far out ways the chance of finding something edible; I have never seen any survival guide that suggests you start picking random stuff and boiling it up to try, that is the fastest way I can think of to kill yourself out in the wilds. Everything I have ever read and from every person I have talked with or gone out with you follow a simple rule of if you don't know what it is don't eat it. For example here where I live we have wild onion and another plant that looks and smells very close to wild onion the big difference is the leaf size and the wild onion has white flowers with a line of purple on each petal whereas the other is just white. That other plant will kill you if you consume it, I am pretty sure *steeping* and drinking that might also be enough to kill you too granted the amount you consume also matters.

Let's take your example of desert plants, there are quite a few cacti out there that will mess with your head and being in a survival situation in an altered state is bad, there are others that are as good as drinking sea water and will make you quite sick, and more still that will dehydrate you. So yeah great idea there...

Let's hop over to terrestrial animal meat now shall we; sure most of it is fine though there are some major exceptions but those are pretty far and between and tend to be things you wouldn't want to mess with anyways. With that said parasites are the big concern with terrestrial animal meat, there are plenty of nasty things living inside of a lot of animals that are going to make you really sick if you eat even if you are fully cooking the meat and this becomes even more of a concern the closer you are to the equator. For example outside of fall/winter I wouldn't touch rabbits since you can get all sorts of deadly diseases from them during spring and summer such as the plague, lyme disease, or rabbit fever.

Also while in the wilds foraging for food you are typically eating 'poorly' and rarely able to find enough to be maintaining your weight, it isn't sustainable long term.

----------


## Wildstag

> That right there is a great way to kill yourself; let's ignore mushrooms since that is its own can of worms and there are mushrooms out there that micrograms of can kill you.
> 
> For starters being sick in a survival situation is often in and of itself deadly; if you are incapable of going out to get more food or even worse stuck in one spot because stuffs coming out of both ends you aren't going to last long. Furthermore the risk of poisoning yourself with highly toxic plants far out ways the chance of finding something edible; I have never seen any survival guide that suggests you start picking random stuff and boiling it up to try, that is the fastest way I can think of to kill yourself out in the wilds. Everything I have ever read and from every person I have talked with or gone out with you follow a simple rule of if you don't know what it is don't eat it. For example here where I live we have wild onion and another plant that looks and smells very close to wild onion the big difference is the leaf size and the wild onion has white flowers with a line of purple on each petal whereas the other is just white. That other plant will kill you if you consume it, I am pretty sure *steeping* and drinking that might also be enough to kill you too granted the amount you consume also matters.
> 
> Let's take your example of desert plants, there are quite a few cacti out there that will mess with your head and being in a survival situation in an altered state is bad, there are others that are as good as drinking sea water and will make you quite sick, and more still that will dehydrate you. So yeah great idea there...
> 
> Let's hop over to terrestrial animal meat now shall we; sure most of it is fine though there are some major exceptions but those are pretty far and between and tend to be things you wouldn't want to mess with anyways. With that said parasites are the big concern with terrestrial animal meat, there are plenty of nasty things living inside of a lot of animals that are going to make you really sick if you eat even if you are fully cooking the meat and this becomes even more of a concern the closer you are to the equator. For example outside of fall/winter I wouldn't touch rabbits since you can get all sorts of deadly diseases from them during spring and summer such as the plague, lyme disease, or rabbit fever.
> 
> Also while in the wilds foraging for food you are typically eating 'poorly' and rarely able to find enough to be maintaining your weight, it isn't sustainable long term.


Firstly, most toxic plants will be noticeably toxic at a glance, by virtue of their not being eaten. If they are being eaten, you sip (no gulping) the tea-like juice. If sufficiently diluted, few toxins will actually give you the runs or other GI issues. And cacti worries are generally overblown and played up in media. 

Mice and lizards are safe to eat as are squirrels, and theyre relatively easy to catch. Eggs, if you can reach them, are for the most part safe. A lot of insects are safe too (though Id avoid butterflies, moths, and the stinging sort). Cicadas and grasshoppers are good. 

Lastly, long-term survival is actually doable and sustainable. However, it requires that you learn what works and what doesnt, and if your starting herb-lore is nonexistent (as it is for much of the modern western culture), you have to expand your palette eventually. Honestly the thought that it isnt sustainable long-term is laughable to me. Our species mere existence proves otherwise. 

P.S. the whole leech in water method is used for cooking acorns and beans, its really not that absurd.

----------


## ShurikVch

Knowledge (nature) gives nature-limited omniscience: character able to recognize bats and squids (presuming the successful checks) - even if they lived all their life in a tundra (which have neither bats, nor squids)

Weapon in a game is, essentially, indestructible: PC able to demolish wall of solid stone (or even adamantine!) with a wooden nonmagical stick (or even a bottle) - and weapon would never break from it (certain special exceptions aside)

Oh, and speaking about the demolishing walls: since walls are immune to nonlethal damage, characters without Improved Unarmed Strike wouldn't be able to break a wall by their bare fists - even if they have Str 100 (but, despite the all aforementioned, - would never injure their knuckles from such ineffective punches)




> That image would be more ridiculous if D&D did not already have earth elementals as popular monsters


Actually, Metal Elemental should be better example (unofficial variants in dandwiki and d20PFSRD both directly saying Metal Elementals are consist of solid unworked ore)
It's weird how _Manual of the Planes_ have Wood Element Creature, but not Metal Element...

----------


## nedz

Yep. We've found a few of these over the years.
Check out the handbook below.

----------


## King of Nowhere

people in the bast would be a lot more knowledgeable with wilderness lore than we are nowadays. people in the modern world who have studied and taken extensive training in survival have... what, a few months of practice living in the wilderness?
People who are born in the wilderness have a lot more experience than that already as children. 

Conversely, think of all the incredibly complex stuff we do on a regular base without thinking about it: nowadays solving first-degree equations is a simple mathematical skill that everyone is expected to have in high school. but those people have been studying 8 years to get the training needed to do that. you go in the middle age in a small settlement in a scarcely populated area, noboy knows how to solve equations; the "scholar" of the village is the one guy who learned how to read and write. Conversely, everyone will have experience spending a few days outside and will be easily capable of getting along in comfort.
Probably, if you were to ask them, they'd say that the DC to forage food in the wilderness are ridiculously high because even a child should be expected to be proficient at it. While solving first degree equations would be a DC 25, and second degree would be above 30. Calculus is epic level challenge. They'd be baffled by the idea that a society could have every young adult be capable of it, just like they'd be baffled by the idea of a society where knowing which mushrooms are safe is not something that everybody knows intimately.

Or think of hierogliphics. Ancient egiptians had very few scribes, and they spent years learning to recognize the symbols. It was such an impractical system, nowadays we don't use it anymore... except that we have all the icons, the emoticons, the street signs... You see a bunch of white lines on the road, and you know you are supposed to cross it there. Every children knows it. Have you ever stopped to consider how incredibly strange that idea would be to someone born before automobiles? they'd consider it exhotic knowledge.


No, what's actually funny about the survival skill is that it has no dc adjustment for terrain and condition. Find food in the tropical rainforest? DC 10. In the desert? DC 10. In the arctic tundra in winter? DC 10. There are 1000 other hunters in the same area who stripped it dry of everything edible? Still DC 10.

I nominate as most ridiculous of all, though, the environmental heat rules. From the srd



> A character in very hot conditions (above 90° F) must make a Fortitude saving throw each hour (DC 15, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Characters wearing heavy clothing or armor of any sort take a -4 penalty on their saves. A character with the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and may be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters reduced to unconsciousness begin taking lethal damage (1d4 points per hour).


90 °F, which is 32°C. 
Which is an *absolutely common* temperature in summer in most of the world - including especially the parts of the world where humankind actually originated from. Apparently, 24 hours of continuous exposure to 32° is enough to kill over 90% of the population, with the remaining half being unconscious. I don't know who wrote that; I suppose some people in the USA are so used to air conditioning, they forgot people can survive pretty well without it. But seriously, death by exposure to a mild summer day?



> Extreme heat (air temperature over 140° F, fire, boiling water, lava) deals lethal damage. Breathing air in these temperatures deals 1d6 points of damage per minute (no save).


140°F is 60°C; that's a temperature you cannot survive indefinitely. But still, you can stay a very long time in it. Actually, I think you can survive indefinitely in 60°C if it's very dry and you have abundant water to drink. 
Anyway, a sauna has normal temperatures of 90 to 100 °C. You stay inside generally around 10 minutes at a time, before it starts to get uncomfortable; then you get out, cool yourself off, and you get back in. I guess everyone in the nordic countries takes 10d6 damage on a regular base; You can easily take 50-60d6 damage on sauna day. You don't want to mess with such people

----------


## Promethean

> I nominate as most ridiculous of all, though, the environmental heat rules. From the srd
> 
> 90 °F, which is 32°C. 
> Which is an *absolutely common* temperature in summer in most of the world - including especially the parts of the world where humankind actually originated from. Apparently, 24 hours of continuous exposure to 32° is enough to kill over 90% of the population, with the remaining half being unconscious. I don't know who wrote that; I suppose some people in the USA are so used to air conditioning, they forgot people can survive pretty well without it. But seriously, death by exposure to a mild summer day?
> 
> 140°F is 60°C; that's a temperature you cannot survive indefinitely. But still, you can stay a very long time in it. Actually, I think you can survive indefinitely in 60°C if it's very dry and you have abundant water to drink. 
> Anyway, a sauna has normal temperatures of 90 to 100 °C. You stay inside generally around 10 minutes at a time, before it starts to get uncomfortable; then you get out, cool yourself off, and you get back in. I guess everyone in the nordic countries takes 10d6 damage on a regular base; You can easily take 50-60d6 damage on sauna day. You don't want to mess with such people


Considering most people have 1d6 health(being lvl 1 peasants) as well, most peasants would die almost immediately in relatively normal conditions.

If one takes RAW as law, one must question how humanoids even survive the sun rising in the morning...

----------


## Gemini476

For what little it's worth, I think WotC realized how dumb those rules were when they wrote Sandstorm and updated the heat danger rules, so now temperatures above 90F... can be survived indefinitely if you're wearing the right clothing, I guess.

Also, for whatever reason, wind exclusively increases the temperature bands rather than decreasing them. Despite the text mentioning that "a cool breeze on the skin can be a blessing during the day".

Speaking of Sandstorm, it's got one of those interesting little bits where some specific rulings make normally aesthetic things matter for charop: an optimal D&D character should be dark-skinned if possible, as it then takes longer to get a sunburn.
(Incidentally, the way the rules are written really assumes that, well, the default player character isn't.)



> If a character is caught out in the sun and completely unprotected, serious consequences can result. After 3 hours of such exposure, the character is mildly sunburned and takes 1 point of nonlethal damage. After 3 hours more exposure, the character develops severe sunburn and immediately takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage and a 2 penalty on Fortitude saves to avoid damage or fatigue from heat dangers until the nonlethal damage is healed.
> 
> Characters or creatures with naturally dark (or tanned) skin pigmentation are naturally resistant to sunburn. Such individuals can remain in the sun unprotected for 6 hours before becoming mildly sunburned, and for 12 hours before becoming severely sunburned.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Considering most people have 1d6 health(being lvl 1 peasants)


Did you mean 1d_4_ (or 1d4-2 if you have an unlucky middle-aged elf)? Anything in this game that can't kill a 1st level commoner with ease is just not trying hard enough.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> For what little it's worth, I think WotC realized how dumb those rules were when they wrote Sandstorm and updated the heat danger rules, so now temperatures above 90F... can be survived indefinitely if you're wearing the right clothing, I guess.
> 
> Also, for whatever reason, wind exclusively increases the temperature bands rather than decreasing them. Despite the text mentioning that "a cool breeze on the skin can be a blessing during the day".
> 
> Speaking of Sandstorm, it's got one of those interesting little bits where some specific rulings make normally aesthetic things matter for charop: an optimal D&D character should be dark-skinned if possible, as it then takes longer to get a sunburn.
> (Incidentally, the way the rules are written really assumes that, well, the default player character isn't.)


well, it's true. on the downside, they are at greater risk of vitamin D deficiency at polar latitudes. 
I wonder if there is a snowstorm supplement where that becomes rilevant

----------


## ShurikVch

> Considering most people have 1d6 health(being lvl 1 peasants)





> Did you mean 1d_4_


Actually, it should be 1d*8*: the most common class in the world is Warrior - not Commoner

----------


## Metastachydium

> Actually, it should be 1d10: the most common class in the world is Warrior - not Commoner


I'm not sure about that. And warriors have d8 hit dice.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I'm not sure about that. And warriors have d8 hit dice.


My bad! Indeed, it's 1d8. Fixed it.

But seriously - how many, by you estimation, there are Goblin Commoners in the world? Bullywug Commoners? Orc Commoners?
Commoner is a class for civilized people - savage people don't use it at all
And, in the D&D worlds, savage people are always outnumbering civilized folk (otherwise, how are they not gone extinct from all those mur... *ahem* _adventurers_?)

----------


## Gemini476

> well, it's true. on the downside, they are at greater risk of vitamin D deficiency at polar latitudes. 
> I wonder if there is a snowstorm supplement where that becomes rilevant


The supplement is Frostburn, and there's no such mechanical benefit for pale characters.




> I'm not sure about that. And warriors have d8 hit dice.


The DMG backs up Commoners being the norm in multiple places. According to the class description they "make up the majority of the population", and the demographics rules (p.138) back this up: "take the remaining population after all other characters are generated and divide it up so that 91% are commoners, 5% are warriors, 3% are experts, and the remaining 1% is equally divided between aristocrats and adepts".
All first-level, mind you. Anything level 2 and up is a specific individual as far as the DMG is concerned.

The examples in the Monster Manual are generally Warriors for all races (be it Orc or Elf), but that's largely just an issue of those being the people who can _actually fight_ and thus are relevant to stat up.

As for specific monsters:
Goblins are 50% noncombatants in their tribes of 80-800 people.
Bullywugs don't even have class levels, if I'm reading Monsters of Faerun right, and their ponds are only 15-48 people.
Orcs are 60% noncombatants in bands of 75-250 people.

Meanwhile, according to the DMG, human cities are 5,000-12,000 people for "small" cities.

----------


## hamishspence

> Bullywugs don't even have class levels, if I'm reading Monsters of Faerun right


"Most bullywugs encountered outside their homes are warriors: the information in the statistics block is for one of 1st level"

That seems to be the general rule for 1 HD humanoids - since it's a 3.0 book they don't specifically say "1st level warrior" in their statblock, but the fluff section does normally say so.

Sharlarin "The information above reflects a 1st level sharlarin warrior"
Siv: "The information above describes a 1st level siv warrior" 

and so forth.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> "Most bullywugs encountered outside their homes are warriors: the information in the statistics block is for one of 1st level"
> 
> That seems to be the general rule for 1 HD humanoids - since it's a 3.0 book they don't specifically say "1st level warrior" in their statblock, but the fluff section does normally say so.
> 
> Sharlarin "The information above reflects a 1st level sharlarin warrior"
> Siv: "The information above describes a 1st level siv warrior" 
> 
> and so forth.


The key here is "outside their home". Commoners don't go adventuring far from their homes, only soldiers and merchants do. That would be warriors and experts. So, yeah, you're more likely to encounter a bullywug warrior, but that doesn't mean that a bullywug is more likely to encounter a bullywug warrior than a commoner.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The DMG backs up Commoners being the norm in multiple places. According to the class description they "make up the majority of the population", and the demographics rules (p.138) back this up: "take the remaining population after all other characters are generated and divide it up so that 91% are commoners, 5% are warriors, 3% are experts, and the remaining 1% is equally divided between aristocrats and adepts".


If we look definition of a "Commoner" in the Wikipedia - we would see:



> In Europe, a distinct concept analogous to common people arose in the Classical civilization of ancient Rome around the 6th century BC, with the social division into patricians (nobles) and plebeians (commoners).


For a less advanced societies - like nomads, or even hunter-gatherers - there would be no Commoner at all, regardless of what DMG may say




> As for specific monsters:
> Goblins are 50% noncombatants in their tribes of 80-800 people.
> Bullywugs don't even have class levels, if I'm reading Monsters of Faerun right, and their ponds are only 15-48 people.
> Orcs are 60% noncombatants in bands of 75-250 people.


"Noncombatants" ≠ "Commoners"
Experts are noncombatants too
(Also, classless children...)




> Meanwhile, according to the DMG, human cities are 5,000-12,000 people for "small" cities.


If you allow me example from real history - at the start of XIX century, in Russia, all cities and towns contained whopping 6,5% of population
Thus, don't matter how much people are in the cities - without knowing the whole picture, we can't make any assumptions there


Also, one more hilarious moment: none of "example" Goblin(/Orc/...) Warriors have any bonus to Survival, but have Wis penalty - shouldn't they get lost all the time?..

----------


## King of Nowhere

oh, there's also the size modifiers. size modifier go to hide, which is only sensible. they do not go to spot, meaning two ants wouldn't be able to see each other from one meter. But then, if you consider a normal garden, two ants not seeing each other from that distance is absolutely sensible.

on the other hand, move silently does not have a size modifier. which means that a dragon tramping around is no more loud than the ant. in fact, the two ants cannot see each others, but they can hear each other very well. A dragon at 30 meters, on the other hand, is almost impossible to hear.
in fact, owing to their high hit dice, bigger creatures tend to be better at moving silently than small ones.

----------


## RSGA

I'm just going to say lots of stuff about sundering and a hydra because if you stick to RAW it gets strange in a few ways. Like, you can't defensively sunder a head unless it's attacking you or everyone's willing to go a little out of RAW. See, bites and hydra tooth aren't given a hardness, and the rules for sundering don't give you much guidance for when you're sundering a natural weapon. Which, if you're sticking to RAW, is probably the only way that you could defensively sunder a hydra.

Also, if you look at the sunder rules, it becomes apparent that while the writers intended for Improved Sunder to have value they didn't think about much else. Given that natural weapons are regularly treated as light weapons, a hydra of any kind gets a +4 to it's attack in a sunder on a medium creature, exactly equal to the bonus from Improved Sunder on weapons. Except you can also get that with a two handed weapon, which a lot of front liners are going to have. Or if the PC is large, say via Expansion or Enlarge Person, hey, the Hydra's +4 is now +0.

Or you can start combining stuff, and that's where it gets silly. A level 2 half-giant Psi-Warrior (let's make this a hard-ish battle for this silly comparison) with Expansion, Improved Sunder, and a Large Great Axe does some sundering on a five headed hydra. Offensive or defensive doesn't matter for this. His bonus on the attack roll for the sunder is +8, making for an absolute minimum total bonus of +11. The hydra doesn't get a bonus and instead gets a -4 penalty so it rolls not at +6 but at +2.

And it only gets worse for the hydra from there. Actually, it's even worse for the Hydra now because the example Psi-Warrior has another feat to factor in, another power, and probably 4 or 5 PP. It's entirely possible for the Expansion to be a 30 min thing with low or no risk to the Psi-Warrior. And in that case, it's safer to throw out a one point Power Attack to get closer to the magic 16 damage that even a maximum, slightly improved Hydra needs to lose a head.

----------


## ShurikVch

> oh, there's also the size modifiers. size modifier go to hide, which is only sensible. they do not go to spot, meaning two ants wouldn't be able to see each other from one meter. But then, if you consider a normal garden, two ants not seeing each other from that distance is absolutely sensible.
> 
> on the other hand, move silently does not have a size modifier. which means that a dragon tramping around is no more loud than the ant. in fact, the two ants cannot see each others, but they can hear each other very well. A dragon at 30 meters, on the other hand, is almost impossible to hear.
> in fact, owing to their high hit dice, bigger creatures tend to be better at moving silently than small ones.


In the same vein, there are also no size modifiers for Balance (thus, need to make checks even if the "Narrow Surface" is wider than your body)
Or for Sleight Of Hand (Mountain Giant pickpocketing a Halfling... Yeah, sure... More like just "pocketing a Halfling...")

One more thing which baffling me is complete lack of Move Silently modifiers for flying: on one hand, such creatures as Air Elementals, Beholders, Lantern Archon, Nightmares, or Will-O-Wisp are have no wings (and thus - produce no flapping sounds) - shouldn't their flying be mostly silent?
On the other hand, various vermins are noisy flyers even at their "common" size - try to imagine how loud should be aerial movement of a horsefly with a size of actual horse...

----------


## Gemini476

> If we look definition of a "Commoner" in the Wikipedia - we would see:
> 
> For a less advanced societies - like nomads, or even hunter-gatherers - there would be no Commoner at all, regardless of what DMG may say


Yes, but also, this is D&D: logic has little place here, it's all just the mind of the writers.

Case in point...



> If you allow me example from real history - at the start of XIX century, in Russia, all cities and towns contained whopping 6,5% of population
> Thus, don't matter how much people are in the cities - without knowing the whole picture, we can't make any assumptions there


See, here's the funny bit: the DMG actually gives us demographics for settlements ranging from 20 to >25,001 inhabitants on page 137. And they're _weird_, since they're meant to give a good chance of encountering big cities.

50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants. Assuming average rolls for each population, _64.83% of the population lives in a "city" or "metropolis"._





> Also, one more hilarious moment: none of "example" Goblin(/Orc/...) Warriors have any bonus to Survival, but have Wis penalty - shouldn't they get lost all the time?..


Probably not? Orcs live in temperate hills, goblins in temperate plains. The DC for getting lost in hills is 10 when off a trail, checked every hour, but that goes down to 6 if you have a map. Plains, meanwhile, you just straight-up can't get lost in unless there's poor visibility from fog etc. (in which case it's DC 12).

However, the orcs that do get lost are unlikely to make it back home again - the DC 20 (-1/hour of random travel) check is tricky with a -2 modifier, and the check to set a new course is DC 15 (+2/hour of random travel) which is likely to be untenable.

No, the ones you should be worried about are the _elves_ - they have a -1 Survival modifier, after all, and the DC to not get lost in a forest is _15_.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Yes, but also, this is D&D: logic has little place here, it's all just the mind of the writers.


Please, tell me: what's Commoners are supposed to do in a society which don't uses agriculture?




> Case in point...
> 
> See, here's the funny bit: the DMG actually gives us demographics for settlements ranging from 20 to >25,001 inhabitants on page 137. And they're _weird_, since they're meant to give a good chance of encountering big cities.
> 
> 50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants. Assuming average rolls for each population, _64.83% of the population lives in a "city" or "metropolis"._


Well, firstly: the "demographics" in the DMG is a guidelines - *not* a rules
This aside - let's look, for example, on the famous Blackmoor: its population is 110000, but the capital contains only 709 citizens, and other major towns are 180 (Egg of Coot), 150 (Tonnsborg), and "ruined" (Blackmoor Town). Thus, all the Major Towns of Blackmoor inhabited by the less than 1% of population.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a singular occurrence - but rather, none of published settings fits to the DMG demographics guidelines

----------


## Malphegor

this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.

Climb is a skill based off of strength.

Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.

Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.

----------


## Gemini476

See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally _predate_ 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates _D&D_.

Even going by their actual words rather than their faulty table, you still get 10% of the population in larger communities:



> In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all.


Actually, here's a fun exercise. If we assume that this is true _and_ the table are true (and remember, _this entire thread is about RAW_), then...

Rather than 93.55% of people living in towns and larger, it's 10%.
Rather than 6.45% of people living in thorps, hamlets and villages, it's 0.69%.
Also, 89.31% of the population is "invisible", living "outside communities".

Going for the 1/15th number instead, you end up with 6.67% of people in larger communities, 0.46% in smaller communities, and 92.87% as outsiders.

The Implied D&D 3.5e Setting is quite unlike history, I think.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> 50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants.


Not so. A randomly generated settlement has a 50% chance of having more than 900 settlements, but nowhere does it say that all settlements are randomly generated. In fact, the text explicitly says that using Table 5-2 to generate settlements is purely optional ("When the PCs come to into a town [...] you *can* use the following material.")

----------


## ShurikVch

> this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.
> 
> Climb is a skill based off of strength.
> 
> Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.
> 
> Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.


This was taken care of in the very _Monster Manual_:



> *Natural Tendencies:* Some creatures simply aren't made for certain types of physical activity. Elephants, despite their great Strength scores, are terrible at jumping. Giant crocodiles, despite their high Strength scores, don't climb well. Horses can't walk tightropes. If it seems clear to you that a particular creature simply is not made for a particular physical activity, you can say that the creature takes a 8 penalty on skill checks that defy its natural tendencies. In extreme circumstances (a porpoise attempting a Climb check, for instance) you can rule that the creature fails the check automatically.






> See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally _predate_ 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates _D&D_


You say "Eberron" - OK, there's Eberron:
Zilargo
Population - 250,000
Trolanport - 27,500;
Korranberg - 17,230;
Zolanberg - 6,170.
Other cites and settlements have no exact numbers listed, but Oskilor and Thurimbar are large towns; Dragonroost and Tzanthus - small towns; Quesk, Reven, Tariston - villages; Tarandro - hamlet; Liugwen - thorp.
By my calculation - correct me if it's erroneous -, no more than 27.232% of Zilargo's population are inhabit those cites and settlements. Where are the rest 72.768%?

----------


## InvisibleBison

> By my calculation - correct me if it's erroneous -, no more than 27.232% of Zilargo's population are inhabit those cites and settlements. Where are the rest 72.768%?


Presumably they're living in other settlements that the source doesn't list.

----------


## loky1109

> this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.
> 
> Climb is a skill based off of strength.
> 
> Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.
> 
> Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.


Swim, too.
Iron golem has big Str. It should swim good.

----------


## ShurikVch

> No, the ones you should be worried about are the _elves_ - they have a -1 Survival modifier, after all, and the DC to not get lost in a forest is _15_.


If we should worry about Elves - then what's about Forest Gnomes?
Hadozee?
Kobolds?
O'bati?
Phanatons?
Tasloi?
Xephs?
Xvarts?
I mean - they are all living in some forests, have Wis penalty, and no ranks in Survival...

Bamboo Spirit Folk, Forestkith Goblins, Saurials, and Vanaras are, at the very least, have no Wis penalties. Finhead Saurial and Vanara get actual Wis *bonus* (+1)
The only one of "forest races" with actual bonus to Survival (AFAIK) is Laika from the _Savage Species_ Web Enhancement

----------


## Seward

Hm, another thing I noticed today.

Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.

His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor.  I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?

----------


## Telok

> Swim, too.
> Iron golem has big Str. It should swim good.


For some reason... no, I know why... anyhoo I always thought iron golems were hollow. There is a pic in the... 2nd?... edition AD&D PH (the one with the extra bad art) of someone making one, and there was something about where the gas came from too. But I always thought they were hollow which, if properly sealed, meant an iron golem of the correct dimensions could float.

But is even an ad hoc -8 enough to offset the elephant strength bonus?... wait, look it up... Ha! Strength 30, +10-8 fir +2, better than most humans at climbing (big) trees and another +4 jumping for the 40' move speed.

----------


## RSGA

> Hm, another thing I noticed today.
> 
> Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
> He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.
> 
> His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor.  I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?


I mean, by most RAW metrics a 3.5 tower shield is a mobile wooden door of some sort with additional banding and cladding to give it those extra 5-10 hit points. So the guy is trying to carry and balance this door+ with one arm and some straps. He's probably banging his armored shins, the floor, and nearby walls often enough to inspire a bad bard.

I figure that seeing a repurposed, improved door moving is probably also eye catching. Especially once it has a livery or heraldric decoration on it.

 :Small Tongue:

----------


## Batcathat

> Hm, another thing I noticed today.
> 
> Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
> He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.
> 
> His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor.  I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?


Now I envision a poor (in both senses of the word) dwarf who makes a living acting as a distraction for hire. I imagine he's popular with criminals, who can just take whatever they want as long as the world's loudest dwarf is walking around outside.

----------


## King of Nowhere

He's easier to see than a colossal-sized dragon. Quite the feat to accomplish for this dwarf.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally _predate_ 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates _D&D_.


The Forgotten Realms does as well, being created by Ed Greenwood sometime in the 1960s as a setting to tell stories in that he adapted to his home D&D hobby in the 1970s, and started inserting details from when he was hired on for Dragon Magazine in the early-1980s. 

It's why it has so many high-detail quirks when you look past the surface details.

----------


## ShurikVch

> For some reason... no, I know why... anyhoo I always thought iron golems were hollow.


Completely Dysfunctional Handbook [3.5]:



> Iron Golem
> Iron Golem is Hollow






> Hm, another thing I noticed today.
> 
> Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
> He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.
> 
> His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor.  I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?


That's because it's Heavy Metal Armor: it plays dwarven Heavy Metal on speakers, and very easy to notice because of all the light show and pyrotechnics...

----------


## Azuresun

> this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.
> 
> Climb is a skill based off of strength.
> 
> Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.
> 
> Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.


The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!

----------


## Azuresun

> I'm seriously puzzled by the lack of facing rules: no matter from which side you're coming to the creature, it's always supposed to be laser-guided on you - even if it's sleeping. And it's get weirder in case of multiple attackers...


Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much. It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.

----------


## Gemini476

> The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!


The Alps, perhaps?

If nothing else, the classic caveman anti-mammoth tactic of "lob spears and shoot arrows from atop a cliff" won't work.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!


Fixed in the 3.5 update booklet:



> *Dire Elephant:* Animal; 20 ft./10 ft.; Listen +19, Spot +15; Alertness,
> Endurance, Improved Bull Rush, Iron Will, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Listen),
> Weapon Focus (gore); LA ; No climb speed (and no racial bonus on Climb).
> Feats improved gore attack bonus to +27 melee and Will save bonus to +16.






> Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much.


The problem for me is a verisimilitude: the classical way to move stealthy is to do it behind the back of the observers, and the original form of Sneak Attack was called "Backstab" (thus, must be done in the *back*). In the "no facing" rules, we're supposed to believe the rogue somehow moves stealthy despite the fact the watchers staring right at them, and stabs the watchers in the face...




> It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.


It's the price of turn-based combat system: participants wouldn't even sneeze until it's their turn...

----------


## Azuresun

> The problem for me is a verisimilitude: the classical way to move stealthy is to do it behind the back of the observers, and the original form of Sneak Attack was called "Backstab" (thus, must be done in the *back*). In the "no facing" rules, we're supposed to believe the rogue somehow moves stealthy despite the fact the watchers staring right at them, and stabs the watchers in the face...


Ah, you're assuming that everyone freezes in place as soon as their turn ends, rather than characters continuing to move and react in abstracted ways (blocking an attack with a shield or resisting a grapple, for example). 

And....they're not staring right at each other. By the rules of Sneak Attack, you need to have some kind of edge that is making your attack easier, such as the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc, or an ally needs to be engaging the enemy. Those all sound *exactly* like things that mean the enemy does not have their full attention on you, or cannot defend themselves properly.

----------


## Seward

> He's easier to see than a colossal-sized dragon. Quite the feat to accomplish for this dwarf.


We used to joke about Sneakasouruses - how a gigantic dinosaur in D&D could hide behind a tiny tree and do better than a lot of PC's.

Then we rescued a bright orange, 110 lb sled-dog mix.  He was a ninja.  He cared about only 2 things - food and exploration/escape.   He had an uncanny way of knowing where everybody's attention was and would scout a new environment for all exits, and how people went through them (like who was sloppy and didn't close it properly).

He would escape from people who worked with dogs for a living, from a moment of inattention.  He could work french doors, sliding glass doors, ACA handles and screen doors almost as fast as a human.  Which is all impressive, but not so much as his stealthy food activities.  He literally pulled the meat out of a sandwich while somebody was holding it and having a conversation and they didn't notice till they bit into it and deduced it mainly because "that dog just went by" and "it seems to be swallowing something".  He was good at containers too, he once taught the dogs in his kennel how to open tupperware (knock it to the ground and pounce on it.  Pop, food spills out), and had a thing where he'd sidle up to a beer-can on the ground, tip it over and lap it up while the owner is watering the lawn or similar a foot away.

He was huge, his tail curled up and made him even more visible when he was up to no good.  But unless he was unaware of you, you would almost never notice anything he got up to until it was too late.  

That experience made us less skeptical of Dinosaur stealth.  But still, it can be kind of silly in D&D.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much. It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.


Let's say our supposed rogue stabbed a Colossal-sized Dragon in the back.
Do you have any idea how much time it should take for such bulk to turn around?
It bugged me in combats of Heroes of Might and Magic, and it bugs me in a "no facing" tabletop combats...




> Ah, you're assuming that everyone freezes in place as soon as their turn ends, rather than characters continuing to move and react in abstracted ways (blocking an attack with a shield or resisting a grapple, for example).


No, I don't assuming such thing. But I don't seeing how it's relevant there.




> And....they're not staring right at each other. By the rules of Sneak Attack, you need to have some kind of edge that is making your attack easier, such as the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc, or an ally needs to be engaging the enemy. Those all sound *exactly* like things that mean the enemy does not have their full attention on you, or cannot defend themselves properly.


No problems with "_the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc_" (After all, it's doable IRL too)
But "_an ally needs to be engaging the enemy_" is a doozy: how can we know the enemy in the example really would be distracted by the ally in question, and not to focus on the rogue instead?
(Unless both allies have Sneak Attack. But even in that case - which one of them should get the opportunity to execute it?)


One more hilarious thing - "hit points aren't wounds"
As it was said in The "BUT DRAGONS!" Fallacy thread:



> Yeah, but that provides a funny mental image...
> 
> "Cleric! I need a heal! That attack _almost_ injured me!"
> 
> It's called Cure Moderate Wounds, not Replenish Moderate Luck.





> Indeed. The whole "hit points aren't wounds" shtick gets completely ridiculous when you apply it to actual gameplay, and the only weird thing about "hit points _are_ wounds" is that moderate-level characters are as tough as heroes from action movies.

----------


## AsuraKyoko

> No problems with "_the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc_" (After all, it's doable IRL too)
> But "_an ally needs to be engaging the enemy_" is a doozy: how can we know the enemy in the example really would be distracted by the ally in question, and not to focus on the rogue instead?
> (Unless both allies have Sneak Attack. But even in that case - which one of them should get the opportunity to execute it?)


I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to _both_ of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you; even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, _incredibly_ distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.

----------


## Telok

> I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to _both_ of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you; even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, _incredibly_ distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.


Of course that doesn't work real well for mindless zombies or golems and such. Zero thoughts, zero self preservation, just ordered to "kill bob" and they'll happily completely ignore everyone else. You can argue that basic SA won't work on them but it ignores all the assorted "make SA work on <type>" things and the same logic applies to flanking or mindless things that aren't SA immune.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to _both_ of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you


While difficult it may be - it's still the *only* way, and any minimally sensible enemy should understand it:
"Chaser of the two hares catches neither"; "Grasp all, lose all"
After all, they have only one weapon, and only one pair of eyes...
(Ettins and Hydras have *more* than one - but why they're legal for flanking is beyond me)




> even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, _incredibly_ distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.


When the enemy is facing the rogue in question? Thus, we're coming back to the "stabbing in the face"...
Do you understand how difficult it should be to shiv somebody who actively using a shield?

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

Innate spell (complete arcane) contains this wordage:

"Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round. One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it,"

But the prerequisites: 

"Quicken Spell (PH) , Silent Spell (PH) , Still Spell (PH) "
doesn't list having a spell slot of 8th level or higher, so you can pick it as soon as you have the 3 metamagic feats, and lastly:

"As well, spellcasters who become unable to cast spells of the level of the spell slot used to power the innate spell become unable to use the spell-like ability." 

Appears at the end of the text... keyword "become unable", meaning you had to be able to cast and then unable. if you weren't able in the first place, there's no RAW issue, and you can cast your spell to your hearts content. Also, if you were able and become unable, you permanently lose the use of the feat by the wording, as there's no clause for becoming able to cast > become able to use spell-like ability. Yay formal logic.

Before the arguments start, logic chain as follows:

Have: quicken, silent, still spell feats > able to choose this feat > pick a spell > no check for if you actually have a spell slot 8 levels above the chosen spell > check if you *lose* access to spell slots 8 levels above chosen spell > permanent loss of feature.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Innate spell (complete arcane) contains this wordage:
> 
> "Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round. One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it,"
> 
> But the prerequisites: 
> 
> "Quicken Spell (PH) , Silent Spell (PH) , Still Spell (PH) "
> doesn't list having a spell slot of 8th level or higher, so you can pick it as soon as you have the 3 metamagic feats, and lastly:
> 
> ...


That's certainly one way to interpret the text. I don't see why anyone would choose such an obviously dysfunctional reading, though.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> That's certainly one way to interpret the text. I don't see why anyone would choose such an obviously dysfunctional reading, though.


Because it's RAW, and that is the logic chain.

By all means, present yours.

The key part it's missing to work as intended is changing the stops working bit to "if you ARE unable to cast yadda yadda, you can't use this ability" as that's a state-based conditional instead of a one time check conditional.

As for why you'd use it in game:

Who the hell is sacrificing a 9th level spell slot for an at will 1st level spell? you can get that with what, 2k gold? that's chump change at 17th level. Using a feat to be able to use any one spell of any level you know at will is totally worth it, though.

----------


## Tzardok

"One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it" means that if you don't have a spell slot eight levels higher, you can't power the spell-like ability, i.e. you can't use it. Seems like the most obvious reading to me.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> "One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it" means that if you don't have a spell slot eight levels higher, you can't power the spell-like ability, i.e. you can't use it. Seems like the most obvious reading to me.


Except it doesn't say anything about if you don't have that spell slot.

You're interpreting, not reading exactly what's written. what you referenced doesn't even interact with the rules at all, unless someone has a reference for "uses spell slot to power it" having an explicit example elsewhere.

In fact, with the other text, RAI it doesn't even actually do anything to the spell slot, you just have to *have* a spell slot of that level open to use it, sorta like the reserve feats.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Because it's RAW,


RAW isn't a real thing.




> and that is the logic chain.


It is a logic chain, one that arrives at a nonsensical conclusion that directly contradicts the clear intent of the




> By all means, present yours.


My interpretation is: The feat says "One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it", so you have to have a spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> RAW isn't a real thing.


{scrubbed}

----------


## InvisibleBison

> {scrub the post, scrub the quote}


I did, yes. The fact that people assert that RAW exists doesn't make it do so.

----------


## Peelee

> I did, yes. The fact that people assert that RAW exists doesn't make it do so.


Imean, we can say the same thing in reverse. And the fact that we can discuss rules, as they have been written, certainly seems to indicate that "rules as written" exists. And that's before we consider that "the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law" as a concept has existed for quite some time.



Now, back to the thread purpose, are we counting just the _most_ obvious formatting errors? Because _Complete Adventurer_ printed the Vigilante Prestige Class, which could learn up to 4 3rd level spells and 4 4th level spells. But there was an error in the spells per day column. You would never get any 4th level spells by pure RAW, though, and would be *MASSIVELY* overpowered instead - at level 7, instead of getting 2 3rd level spells and 0 4th level spells per day, you would instead get 20 3rd level spells per day. At 8th level, 31 spells per day. All ten levels in Vigilante, you only know 4 3rd level spells but you can cast them 33 times a day. You also know 4 4th level spells that you can never cast, but hey, that tradeoff might well be worth it.

----------


## redking

> You're interpreting, not reading exactly what's written.


There is a difference between interpreting and comprehending. In this case there is no difference between the rules as written and the rules as intended. {Scrubbed}

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> Now, back to the thread purpose, are we counting just the _most_ obvious formatting errors? Because _Complete Adventurer_ printed the Vigilante Prestige Class, which could learn up to 4 3rd level spells and 4 4th level spells. But there was an error in the spells per day column. You would never get any 4th level spells by pure RAW, though, and would be *MASSIVELY* overpowered instead - at level 7, instead of getting 2 3rd level spells and 0 4th level spells per day, you would instead get 20 3rd level spells per day. At 8th level, 31 spells per day. All ten levels in Vigilante, you only know 4 3rd level spells but you can cast them 33 times a day. You also know 4 4th level spells that you can never cast, but hey, that tradeoff might well be worth it.


Were there any useful spells on it's list at 3rd though? And you could cast 4th level... if you had the Versatile spellcaster feat.  :Small Tongue: 




> There is a difference between interpreting and comprehending. In this case there is no difference between the rules as written and the rules as intended. Scrub the post, scrub the quote


Oh, please explain the error in logic then{Scrubbed}

remember that some rules text still ends up being descriptive only, for instance:

"A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease."  

that line is rules text, but doesn't actually describe anything mechanically.

----------


## Peelee

*The Mod on the Silver Mountain:* Closed for review.

----------


## Pirate ninja

*Modly Roger:
*
Thread reopened, please treat each other respectfully.

----------


## Martin Greywolf

I, personally, find slings absolutely hilarious in DnD. By the rules, they are a simple weapon with very low range doing little damage.

In reality, they are THE hardest weapon to learn to use proficiently (beating even things like nunchucks, flails and san jie gun), do damage comparable with a musket (albeit their anti-armor performance isn't very good) and I, personally, can sling a baseball to about 150 meters (450 feet). Good slingers can get to about 200 (600) with a baseball/rock and 400 (1200) with a shaped bullet.

I don't think I've ever seen a TTRPG get a weapon this badly wrong. Unlesss it was FATAL.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I, personally, find slings absolutely hilarious in DnD. By the rules, they are a simple weapon with very low range doing little damage.
> 
> In reality, they are THE hardest weapon to learn to use proficiently (beating even things like nunchucks, flails and san jie gun), do damage comparable with a musket (albeit their anti-armor performance isn't very good) and I, personally, can sling a baseball to about 150 meters (450 feet). Good slingers can get to about 200 (600) with a baseball/rock and 400 (1200) with a shaped bullet.
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen a TTRPG get a weapon this badly wrong. Unlesss it was FATAL.


It's widely accepted opinion: when WotC wrote rules for sling, they actually thought "slingshot" - thus the inconsistencies


One more well-known mistake with a weapon: scythes
Nothing majorly wrong with the mechanics, but the actual battle scythe looks like this:

----------


## Gemini476

Slings are one of those things where people think it underscores how much David was the underdog vs. Goliath, but actually it's just a really good weapon and _him using a sling_ wasn't the issue in that matchup.
It was basically the Indiana Jones scene where the swordsman does some impressive maneuvers and then Indy just shoots him. Solid rock straight to the dome. Physical size and reach doesn't do much against someone with a ranged weapon that can cause lethal damage through armor.

People like to think that slings are really inaccurate and not that great because they're kind of hard to use, but if you _do_ know how to use them (say, from being a bored shepherd who's practiced for years to scare away lions) then they're a lethal weapon of war.

Really, if anything, they should be Martial weapons if not outright Exotic... and on a related note the firearms in the DMG shouldn't be Exotic, they should be Simple. (_Anyone_ being able to use one was the big appeal, after all!)

----------


## Bohandas

Has anyone pointed out that as written the _Darkness_ spell can actually make things brighter, since it sets the level of light to shadowy illumination, and therefore would actually brighten a room that was pitcch dark

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> I, personally, find slings absolutely hilarious in DnD. By the rules, they are a simple weapon with very low range doing little damage.
> 
> In reality, they are THE hardest weapon to learn to use proficiently (beating even things like nunchucks, flails and san jie gun), do damage comparable with a musket (albeit their anti-armor performance isn't very good) and I, personally, can sling a baseball to about 150 meters (450 feet). Good slingers can get to about 200 (600) with a baseball/rock and 400 (1200) with a shaped bullet.
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen a TTRPG get a weapon this badly wrong. Unlesss it was FATAL.


I mean, the real funny thing about the RAW weapon table is that they decided to individually stat out so many weapons, but not really give most of them a reason to ever be used.




> Has anyone pointed out that as written the Darkness spell can actually make things brighter, since it sets the level of light to shadowy illumination, and therefore would actually brighten a room that was pitcch dark


And this could all have been avoided if it had been named "shadow", _because you have to have a source of light to make a shadow_. then we wouldn't need "deeper darkness" just darkness.

----------


## Seward

> Has anyone pointed out that as written the _Darkness_ spell can actually make things brighter, since it sets the level of light to shadowy illumination, and therefore would actually brighten a room that was pitcch dark


That was one thing Pathfinder unambiguously did better.  Light spells (or the sun) set the ambient, and darkness spells reduced it (although illumination that wasn't the sun was usually overridden by darkness).  Reduce it to where everything is shadowy, and the lowlight guys are happy.  Reduce it so only darkvision works, and they're happy.  Absolutely black it out, and the Grimlocks are happy.   To cancel out an effect set by a light or darkness spell you had to be equal spell level, to override it you had to be higher spell level (basically same as 3.5).

----------


## St Fan

The Half-Dragon template say absolutely nothing about the character's aging and longevity.

So by RAW, a half-human/half-dragon still ages like a baseline human.

----------


## Remuko

> The Half-Dragon template say absolutely nothing about the character's aging and longevity.
> 
> So by RAW, a half-human/half-dragon still ages like a baseline human.


the template doesnt but later books elaborated on this. the draconomicon or races of the dragon iirc.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> The Half-Dragon template say absolutely nothing about the character's aging and longevity.
> 
> So by RAW, a half-human/half-dragon still ages like a baseline human.


It also has no restrictions on having the template multiple times, so realistically speaking, every single true dragon should have it twice, as they're two-halves dragon.

In a less stupid sense, It does actually mean that a mixed-species dragon would be more powerful potentially, if you used the stronger parent as the base race and applied half dragon from the other.

----------


## Bavarian itP

> The Half-Dragon template say absolutely nothing about the character's aging and longevity.
> 
> So by RAW, a half-human/half-dragon still ages like a baseline human.


And where is the hilarious thing?

----------


## Martin Greywolf

> Slings are one of those things where people think it underscores how much David was the underdog vs. Goliath, but actually it's just a really good weapon and _him using a sling_ wasn't the issue in that matchup.
> It was basically the Indiana Jones scene where the swordsman does some impressive maneuvers and then Indy just shoots him. Solid rock straight to the dome. Physical size and reach doesn't do much against someone with a ranged weapon that can cause lethal damage through armor.


Slings are about on par with late medieval warbows, whether longbows or Ottoman, albeit a lot worse against solid plate armor. The David vs Goliath story was a big deal because David was a slinger so skilled he could land a called shot in the middle of the forehead - that skill was what was exceptional, not the damage done.




> People like to think that slings are really inaccurate and not that great because they're kind of hard to use, but if you _do_ know how to use them (say, from being a bored shepherd who's practiced for years to scare away lions) then they're a lethal weapon of war.


I mean, you need to spend ten times the training time than for a longbow, and you get a weapon that matches it, but is worse against armor.




> Really, if anything, they should be Martial weapons if not outright Exotic... and on a related note the firearms in the DMG shouldn't be Exotic, they should be Simple. (_Anyone_ being able to use one was the big appeal, after all!)


Exotic no contest. I can use a longbow or a halberd just fine, and you get to be proficient in using them in a few months. Longbow will take about as long, depending on how physically fit you are. A sling... well, after about half a year, you will no longer be a danger to your own side and able to hit large formations on a good day. You can do that day 1 with a longbow, provided you can draw it.

----------


## Promethean

> In a less stupid sense, It does actually mean that a mixed-species dragon would be more powerful potentially, if you used the stronger parent as the base race and applied half dragon from the other.


Huh. So in a non-vacuum setting where things aren't controlled from getting out of hand by writers, mixed race dragons would out compete their pure breed cousins?

Interesting... (furiously scribes notes for no reason)

----------


## Bohandas

> Exotic no contest. I can use a longbow or a halberd just fine, and you get to be proficient in using them in a few months. Longbow will take about as long, depending on how physically fit you are. A sling... well, after about half a year, you will no longer be a danger to your own side and able to hit large formations on a good day. You can do that day 1 with a longbow, provided you can draw it.


And on the reverse side, guns should be simple weapons. The whole point of them is their streamlined design and simple point-and-click interface

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> Huh. So in a non-vacuum setting where things aren't controlled from getting out of hand by writers, mixed race dragons would out compete their pure breed cousins?
> 
> Interesting... (furiously scribes notes for no reason)


yeah turns out inbreeding is bad, who knew?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Really, if anything, they should be Martial weapons if not outright Exotic... and on a related note the firearms in the DMG shouldn't be Exotic, they should be Simple. (_Anyone_ being able to use one was the big appeal, after all!)





> Exotic no contest. I can use a longbow or a halberd just fine, and you get to be proficient in using them in a few months. Longbow will take about as long, depending on how physically fit you are. A sling... well, after about half a year, you will no longer be a danger to your own side and able to hit large formations on a good day. You can do that day 1 with a longbow, provided you can draw it.





> And on the reverse side, guns should be simple weapons. The whole point of them is their streamlined design and simple point-and-click interface


I don't think the simple/martial/exotic trichotomy is meant to represent how easy it is to learn to use a weapon; rather, it's meant to restrict access to the mechanically better weapons. Martial weapons are, by and large, better than similar simple weapons, and exotic weapons are either better than similar martial weapons or are monk weapons. Thus, access to the superior martial weapons requires either that you have levels in a martial class or spend a feat, and access to the even more superior exotic weapons requires even martial characters to spend a feat. It's purely a game balance decision as to what category a weapon falls into.

----------


## Morphic tide

> I don't think the simple/martial/exotic trichotomy is meant to represent how easy it is to learn to use a weapon; rather, it's meant to restrict access to the mechanically better weapons. Martial weapons are, by and large, better than similar simple weapons, and exotic weapons are either better than similar martial weapons or are monk weapons. Thus, access to the superior martial weapons requires either that you have levels in a martial class or spend a feat, and access to the even more superior exotic weapons requires even martial characters to spend a feat. It's purely a game balance decision as to what category a weapon falls into.


As opposed to making like Full Plate and having the bar to entry be a price tag well out of reach of 1st-level characters? Or using realistic reload times to make the things irrelevant to PCs without dramatic interventions of magic and feats? Or even make the EWP for something other than avoiding an attack roll penalty, like avoiding the previous!

----------


## Scots Dragon

> yeah turns out inbreeding is bad, who knew?


Hybrid vigour, or heterosis, is also a well-known phenomenon.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The Half-Dragon template say absolutely nothing about the character's aging and longevity.
> 
> So by RAW, a half-human/half-dragon still ages like a baseline human.


Until the _Races of the Dragon_, I was pretty sure it was intended like this





> In a less stupid sense, It does actually mean that a mixed-species dragon would be more powerful potentially, if you used the stronger parent as the base race and applied half dragon from the other.





> Huh. So in a non-vacuum setting where things aren't controlled from getting out of hand by writers, mixed race dragons would out compete their pure breed cousins?


So, like asari in Mass Effect? (Except no Ardat-Yakshi equivalent)

----------


## Seward

Actually I find the fact that dragons can breed with ANYTHING corporeal pretty hilarious.



> Half-dragon is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).


I'm not sure exactly how even with polymorph-assisted relationships a half-dragon-ooze works, but....it seems to.  The baby ooze gets 6 skill points a racial level...minus int modifiers, but int is raised 2 and it is now dragon type, so it isn't mindless anymore...

We had a GM take it to silly extremes early in 3.0 (the half dragon stirges that swarmed us and all breathed at once got one player to get up and walk away from the table for good...).  But basically the dragon at the bottom of that dungeon had bred with pretty much everything in the dungeon...

Living Greyhawk had a red dragon Morgenstaler in the Bandit Kingdoms famous for sleeping with anything (odd half dragon encounters in his area were famous and he'd get mad if he found out you killed any of them) and there was one scenario where he romanced a PC, took her out on a date and she could end up with an egg to raise....  (I had a character who had the distinction of being REJECTED by him, which was crushing for her, since a half dragon GOAT was encountered later...)

Things you have a character say on the last day of the convention that squick out the party "I have wildshape, if goats are what he is into...."

----------


## Wildstag

> It also has no restrictions on having the template multiple times, so realistically speaking, every single true dragon should have it twice, as they're two-halves dragon.
> 
> In a less stupid sense, It does actually mean that a mixed-species dragon would be more powerful potentially, if you used the stronger parent as the base race and applied half dragon from the other.


Do note that the half-dragon template can't be applied to a dragon, per RotD p72. 




> Since the half-dragon template can apply to any living creature type other than dragons, a nearly limitless variety of possible half-dragons exist.


So for a mixed-species dragon to be more powerful than the full-blooded parent, the non-dragon parent would need to be as strong as (or barely less powerful than) the dragon parent.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Do note that the half-dragon template can't be applied to a dragon, per RotD p72.


That's certainly not what the primary source says:




> *Creating A Half-Dragon:* "Half-dragon" is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

----------


## Wildstag

> That's certainly not what the primary source says:


So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo. Besides, if that's the case, Half-Dragons don't actually have an extended lifespan (as stated in RotD) because it's not explicitly stated in MM1.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo. Besides, if that's the case, Half-Dragons don't actually have an extended lifespan (as stated in RotD) because it's not explicitly stated in MM1.


Expanding on an item is one thing, but changing it from what it was is another entirely. And to my knowledge, no errata was published on the subject.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo.


We can solve this debate pretty easy: All dragons were also two-halves dragon if they were born before RotD came out, simple.

Something I came across reading stronghold builder's guide... a 500x30x15 ft moat costs 50,000 gold. what's weird about this is that digging was historically one of the cheapest labors, the biggest cost would just be from the potential retaining wall keeping the moat's shape. but, they explain that all stronghold costs assume you're using magic where applicable... two castings of move earth would be able to dig this out, and only cost a total of 1,320 gold. so where is this other ~49K gold cost coming from?

clearly the moat diggers have a very, very good union.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Something I came across reading stronghold builder's guide... a 500x30x15 ft moat costs 50,000 gold. what's weird about this is that digging was historically one of the cheapest labors, the biggest cost would just be from the potential retaining wall keeping the moat's shape. but, they explain that all stronghold costs assume you're using magic where applicable... two castings of move earth would be able to dig this out, and only cost a total of 1,320 gold. so where is this other ~49K gold cost coming from?
> 
> clearly the moat diggers have a very, very good union.


Pretty much everything in the SBG is insanely overpriced, especially since apparently, despite magic being able to completely build stuff for 100% free in _very_ little time (spell slots notwithstanding), spellcasting only grants a minor reduction in cost, for some reason. I mean, I can use _wall of stone_ and _summon monster_ spells to build walls and dig pits respectively, and use _stone shape, (greater) fabricate,_ and _planar binding_ to do detail work and plumbing and stuff, basically giving me ALL of the materials and ALL the labor for free, but it only saves me a small percentage of the cost of materials and labor. _Whyyyy?_

----------


## Seward

Traditionally in D&D (1st edition) strongholds existed entirely as a means of sucking away excess gold pieces that were basically worthless at higher levels (they were valuable mostly for the XP you got looting them.  There was very little to spend on since markets for magic items, at least in Greyhawk, were entirely low end stuff and commissioning items for mere gold as opposed to favors or trade in equivalent items wasn't really done by the folks who could make it - circle of 8, great druid, leaders of various religions etc). In lower levels gold was always in short supply due to very high training costs compared to WBL just to advance to the next level.  The entire economy was a protection racket designed to siphon gold from citizens into adventurer guilds.  (monsters raid, adventurers kill monsters and loot whatever they raided, then pay basically all of it to the Guild in exchange for being trained)

So yeah, it was all hideously overpriced and that continues through 3rd edition.  In spite of the fact wall of stone can do most of the expensive stuff (and move earth followed by mud to rock will make a pretty good moat too, just add rain from control weather....)

----------


## Bavarian itP

Could somebody be so kind to tell me the rules for the mysterious weapon "check toee"? According to Complete Divine pg. 121, this is Tharizdun's favored weapon. With a ridiculous name like that, I guess it's some kind of polearm ...

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Could somebody be so kind to tell me the rules for the mysterious weapon "check toee"? According to Complete Divine pg. 121, this is Tharizdun's favored weapon. With a ridiculous name like that, I guess it's some kind of polearm ...


https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Check_toee

_"Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121, on Table 5-2, "Other Greyhawk Deities". It appears to be a note written by the author, "Check ToEE" meaning to check Temple of Elemental Evil for Tharizdun's favored weapon. This probably refers to the D&D 3rd edition adventure module Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (2001) rather than the original AD&D T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (1985), as favored weapons were a game mechanic introduced by D&D 3rd edition (2000).

A similar apparent error appeared in Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (2000), p.185, which lists Tharizdun's favored weapon as the "spiral of decay". This is most likely an error caused by misreading a table, as the spiral of decay is the name for Tharizdun's holy symbol.

Tharizdun's favored weapon is usually referred to in other sources as a dagger._

----------


## Seward

> Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121


What I find hilarious is that it was entirely reasonable to assume this was  strange custom polearm, rather than a typo

----------


## Vaern

> https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Check_toee
> 
> _Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121, on Table 5-2, "Other Greyhawk Deities". It appears to be a note written by the author, "Check ToEE" meaning to check Temple of Elemental Evil for Tharizdun's favored weapon. This probably refers to the D&D 3rd edition adventure module Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (2001) rather than the original AD&D T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (1985), as favored weapons were a game mechanic introduced by D&D 3rd edition (2000).
> 
> A similar apparent error appeared in Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (2000), p.185, which lists Tharizdun's favored weapon as the "spiral of decay". This is most likely an error caused by misreading a table, as the spiral of decay is the name for Tharizdun's holy symbol.
> 
> Tharizdun's favored weapon is usually referred to in other sources as a dagger._


So it's a typo attempting to direct you to the wrong version of a module that misprinted the information it's referencing?
Why couldn't they just say favored weapon: dagger?

----------


## Tzardok

> So it's a typo attempting to direct you to the wrong version of a module that misprinted the information it's referencing?
> Why couldn't they just say favored weapon: dagger?


Propably whoever wrote that thing didn't remember the right weapon, so he put in a note to look it up (and where). And then he never actually did it and the note ended up in the printed book.

Incidentally, whoever translated the book to German _did_ look it up and put the correct weapon in the table.

----------


## Gemini476

It's far from the worst editing error to make it into a published D&D book. That price goes to the 2E _Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 1,_ a comprehensive magic item collection which infamously had them run a find-replace to change all the instances of "Mage" to "Wizard" (fitting with the TSR house style).
The issue, which made it into the printed book, is that this also resulted in a lot of talk about "iwizards", or how much "dawizard" the item in question could cause or survive...

(Less disastrous, but very similar to the "check toee" issue, was how the old Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse books would occasionally tell to player to "See Page XX". The issue with placeholders is that you need to make sure you replace them all before you ship.)

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> Pretty much everything in the SBG is insanely overpriced, especially since apparently, despite magic being able to completely build stuff for 100% free in _very_ little time (spell slots notwithstanding), spellcasting only grants a minor reduction in cost, for some reason. I mean, I can use _wall of stone_ and _summon monster_ spells to build walls and dig pits respectively, and use _stone shape, (greater) fabricate,_ and _planar binding_ to do detail work and plumbing and stuff, basically giving me ALL of the materials and ALL the labor for free, but it only saves me a small percentage of the cost of materials and labor. _Whyyyy?_


they actually *kinda* go over this, It's spread around but that was meant to represent *hiring* a caster capable of doing that, not just doing it yourself, and free specialized labor forces (summon monster) DO save you money and time.

So rolling back around to the innate spell thing, an at-will spell like ability of fabricate, with eschew material components, lets you just arbitrarily create anything. You first have to cast the actual spell version of fabricate, using eschew materials to create 1 GP worth of whatever it is you want. then you use that 1 GP worth of, oh, diamonds, as your focus for at will fabricate. you start off only being able to freely make 1/50th of a GP worth, but as the pile gets bigger, so do the returns. after you've cast 50 times, you have 2 GP worth of diamonds, so you get 1/25th GP each casting. this continues forever, allowing you to make infinite whatever.

this means you can power your entire empire with cookie clicker wizards.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

*Sigh*

I'm looking over feats from Dragon Magazine, and I just got to the Tireless [Ancestor] feat, from Dragon#318, and I realize that it most definitely doesn't do what I'm sure the author thought it does, and the fact that I've seen nigh identical wording for other similar abilities elsewhere means they probably all suffer the same fate:

_You reduce the effects of exhaustion and fatigue by 1 step. You cannot become exhausted; if you are exposed to an effect or condition that would make you exhausted [such as the spell waves of exhaustion], you become fatigued instead. If an effect or condition [such as the end of barbarian rage] would make you fatigued, you suffer no penalty at all._

So you're immune to exhaustion, and any effect that would have made you exhausted make you fatigued, instead. But you take no penalties from fatigue, so...

----------


## hamishspence

Seems pretty obvious to me - Exhaustion effects become Fatigued effects, and, _separately,_ Fatigued effects become "nothing at all" effects.

"Suffer no penalty at all" applies_ only_ to "_just_ becoming fatigued" _not_ to "becoming exhausted".

Having a character who would normally become exhausted suffer no penalty at all, would be "reducing it by _two_ steps" not one.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Seems pretty obvious to me - Exhaustion effects become Fatigued effects, and, _separately,_ Fatigued effects become "nothing at all" effects.
> 
> "Suffer no penalty at all" applies_ only_ to "_just_ becoming fatigued" _not_ to "becoming exhausted".
> 
> Having a character who would normally become exhausted suffer no penalty at all, would be "reducing it by _two_ steps" not one.


But the fatigued status doesn't give you any penalties if you have it, meaning that, regardless of RAI, RAW is that exhaustion is reduced to fatigue, and fatigue doesn't affect you at all.

----------


## Buufreak

> It's far from the worst editing error to make it into a published D&D book. That price goes to the 2E _Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 1,_ a comprehensive magic item collection which infamously had them run a find-replace to change all the instances of "Mage" to "Wizard" (fitting with the TSR house style).
> The issue, which made it into the printed book, is that this also resulted in a lot of talk about "iwizards", or how much "dawizard" the item in question could cause or survive...
> 
> (Less disastrous, but very similar to the "check toee" issue, was how the old Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse books would occasionally tell to player to "See Page XX". The issue with placeholders is that you need to make sure you replace them all before you ship.)


2 notes to make. Firstly, haha, a typo in a post about a typo (price not prize). Second, let this be a lesson kids: when doing a replace function, hit space, type the word, then space again for both the find and replace. If Stewie Griffon can learn this lesson, so can you.

----------


## hamishspence

> But the fatigued status doesn't give you any penalties if you have it, meaning that, regardless of RAI, RAW is that exhaustion is reduced to fatigue, and fatigue doesn't affect you at all.


It's pretty clear that "not giving you any penalties" _only_ applies to "regular fatigue"_ not_ "exhaustion_ reduced to_ fatigue"

Having "exhaustion reduced to fatigue" apply no penalty at all, would be reducing the effects of exhaustion _two_ steps,_ not_ one.

You have to apply _all_ the RAW, not just part of it - and "reduced _one step"_ is an important part of it.




If someone were to claim that their exhausted character suffers no penalty, I would say 

"Sorry, you have just reduced the effects of exhaustion _two_ steps, not_ one_ as the rules demand."

----------


## Scots Dragon

> It's pretty clear that "not giving you any penalties" _only_ applies to "regular fatigue"_ not_ "exhaustion_ reduced to_ fatigue"
> 
> Having "exhaustion reduced to fatigue" apply no penalty at all, would be reducing the effects of exhaustion _two_ steps,_ not_ one.
> 
> You have to apply _all_ the RAW, not just part of it - and "reduced _one step"_ is an important part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is all an exact example of what I was talking about in the 'Spells Known' thread with ordinary naturalistic English langauge reading comprehension being subsumed by a weird alien legalese when it comes to the discussions around D&D 3.5e. 

It's so plainly obvious what the intention is, and they don't _need_ to go into some weird legalistic language with regards to how these things function because you're meant to actually parse things with your ability to comprehend language. It's the same thing with so many other 'dysfunctional' rules, and I'm really tired of it. I don't know when or where all this nonsense started, but it's probably the most annoying thing about discussing Dungeons & Dragons online.

----------


## Promethean

> I don't know when or where all this nonsense started, but it's probably the most annoying thing about discussing Dungeons & Dragons online.


It started with theoretical optimization.

When people started taking advantage of alien legalese interpretations of the rules to make funny builds to post on the internet, they built up a habit reading the rules with a Legalese filter on. This leads those who also like Playing balanced games to have the knee-jerk reaction to "fix" what they perceive as a "problem"(even though common sense in enough for most tables).

This eventually leads to the weird imaginary rules disjunctions that people come up with. Confirmation bias is a thing, and when you have a (nerf)hammer, everything looks like a nail.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> *Sigh*
> 
> I'm looking over feats from Dragon Magazine, and I just got to the Tireless [Ancestor] feat, from Dragon#318, and I realize that it most definitely doesn't do what I'm sure the author thought it does, and the fact that I've seen nigh identical wording for other similar abilities elsewhere means they probably all suffer the same fate:
> 
> _You reduce the effects of exhaustion and fatigue by 1 step. You cannot become exhausted; if you are exposed to an effect or condition that would make you exhausted [such as the spell waves of exhaustion], you become fatigued instead. If an effect or condition [such as the end of barbarian rage] would make you fatigued, you suffer no penalty at all._
> 
> So you're immune to exhaustion, and any effect that would have made you exhausted make you fatigued, instead. But you take no penalties from fatigue, so...


Hilariously this is entirely a timing issue if you go go by formal logic. you are saying if 2, then 1, and if 1, then 0.

but all you need is if 1, then 0, if 2, then 1.

And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.

Yes, a table has a DM and they can do whatever the hell they want. but that's just it, there's no point in discussing that when making theoretical builds because that same DM could just decide "eh, i'm not allowing wizard this game".

Plus, the study of RAW is great for us DMs who do political intrigue, because it teaches you that you can say one thing, people will interpret it in a certain way, but you did not actually say what they think you said.

the *real* frustrating thing here is how this is a RAW thread and people keep arguing against RAW with RAI. yes, when you apply any amount of logic to some of these things, they turn out differently, but the whole point of the thread is not applying logic, just reading what is written.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.


But Dungeons & Dragons is not and has never been a competitive card-game that has a simple one-versus-one assumption for fifteen minute length games. It is a collaborative roleplaying game. 

The basic assumptions are thus _radically_ different.

----------


## Silly Name

> And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.


I'd argue that, barring a few exceptions mostly from older sets from when card design was more lax, MtG cards tend to be quite plain and easy to parse. They're written in a tight, defined language that leaves no space for ambiguity or disagreements on how things work because it allows the game to run smoothly. Most of the time - sometimes rules clarification are needed, as well as clarification for some edge-case interaction, but those are exceptions.

This is all to say that the MtG's syntax and dictionary is nowhere near the absurd alien nonsense of some "RAW" that I've seen purpoted on the net. Anyone trying to contort the rules of MtG in the same way people contort the rules of D&D 3.5 would be quickly laughed off most tables and boards. There's a funny copypasta about this exact thing, a guy refusing to accept being disqualified from a tournament for cheating because he had a card saying "You can't lose the game" in play, and the humour is about the judges and even the police conceding to this absurd train of thought (it's obviously a fictional story, but it makes fun of the mindset that rules exist in a vacuum and apply to stuff they obviously don't).

D&D was simply never meant to be read like that. As Scots Dragon said, it was written on the assumption that the readers were human beings who can parse plain English and are able to apply common sense to rules interpretation, not try to contort plain English into absurd legalese to create ridicolous situations.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

> But Dungeons & Dragons is not and has never been a competitive card-game that has a simple one-versus-one assumption for fifteen minute length games.


Some might disagree with that but that's not really the point, just that we're making fun of the *rules as written*.

Anyway, a new one:

The "invisible spell" metamagic stipulates:

*"You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation."*

So if you applied this to the spell invisibility... it stops the visible manifestation, which is you turning invisible. _but_

*"Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell"*

meaning that people with see invisible instead see the normal manifestation of the spell... which is you being invisible. I think after that you'd still have the typical effects of those spells (which means you're only truely invisible to people using detect magic, hilariously) but you would *appear* to be trying to be invisible.

----------


## Seward

Invisible spell has all kinds of weird consequences that aren't at all thought out in the feat description.  Basically player and GM need to work out how it behaves at her table.

----------


## Bohandas

On a completely diffetent topic, has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that two different characters with the same class levels, ability scores, and race could have wntirely diffetent amounts of skill points based solely on what order they took the class levels and their ability acore increases in




> 2 notes to make. Firstly, haha, a typo in a post about a typo (price not prize). Second, let this be a lesson kids: when doing a replace function, hit space, type the word, then space again for both the find and replace. If Stewie Griffon can learn this lesson, so can you.


Technically after you did space-word-space you'd also have to run the function for space-word-perios, space-word-exclamation-point, space-word-questionmark, and possibly space-word-quotation-mark

----------


## Scots Dragon

> On a completely diffetent topic, has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that two different characters with the same class levels, ability scores, and race could have wntirely diffetent amounts of skill points based solely on what order they took the class levels and their ability acore increases in


Also different average hit point scores, for that matter.

----------


## Jervis

> Invisible spell has all kinds of weird consequences that aren't at all thought out in the feat description.  Basically player and GM need to work out how it behaves at her table.


My favorite is Invisible Solid Fog.  Not only is it hilarious to pull on players but it means that the only ones with obscured vision are people with see invisibility and true sight. Honestly its a neat way of testing if someone has true sight or see invisibility. Just cast invisible spell fabricate to make a hat that has a sign with some shocking image on it. So if someone does a double take you know they have s p e c i a l  e y e s

----------


## Buufreak

> Technically after you did space-word-space you'd also have to run the function for space-word-perios, space-word-exclamation-point, space-word-questionmark, and possibly space-word-quotation-mark


All of which is apparently way more effort than an editing team can manage.

----------


## ShurikVch

High-level single-class Monks are able to take Craft Wondrous Item (supernatural special abilities have CL=HD) and thus - qualify for Lich template.

I'm still baffled by the fact you can wound an Air Elemental with non-magical weapon. What's up - is it bleeding? Did we damaged its vital organs? Or, maybe, cut off pieces of its body?..  :Small Confused: 

Breakage of ammunition can get ridiculous really easy and fast: catapult ammo made of adamantine hit a rat and... breaks into nothing? (Even more silly example - ballista bolt made of riverine)

Simulacrum: "_If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness._"
Wight: "_Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds._"
Thus, apparently, the new Wight would appear out of "_nothingness_"  :Small Amused: 

Animated Armor is a creature.
Being a creature, it's able to wear armor.
If the armor it's wearing is animated too - it should be able to wear armor too...
Rinse and repeat. Pack in enough armors to crush enemies by the sheer weight...

----------


## Jervis

> Animated Armor is a creature.
> Being a creature, it's able to wear armor.
> If the armor it's wearing is animated too - it should be able to wear armor too...
> Rinse and repeat. Pack in enough armors to crush enemies by the sheer weight...


Russian nesting armor is my new favorite enemy

----------


## loky1109

> Russian nesting armor is my new favorite enemy


Do you mean "Матрёшка armor"? )))

----------


## Bohandas

> I'm still baffled by the fact you can wound an Air Elemental with non-magical weapon. What's up - is it bleeding? Did we damaged its vital organs? Or, maybe, cut off pieces of its body?..


I agree. That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

I mean, I could maybe see someone being able to disperse it like the air demon in _Ghost Rider_ but it makes no sense that someone without superhuman strength and agility would be able to hurt it with a normal weapon.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

I mean, elementals are already pretty strange on a fundamental level when you get down to it. For an air elemental, I guess every time you swing through it, even the small wind created by your weapon is enough to disrupt it's existing winds, and also push some of 'its' air out of its 'body' while contaminating it with new air that it doesn't control.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> High-level single-class Monks are able to take Craft Wondrous Item (supernatural special abilities have CL=HD) and thus - qualify for Lich template.


Not quite. They've got the caster level, but to create the phylactery you have to be able "to cast spells".




> Simulacrum: "_If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness._"
> Wight: "_Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds._"
> Thus, apparently, the new Wight would appear out of "_nothingness_"


I don't think there's a problem here. A simulacrum reduced to 0 hp is destroyed, not slain, so it won't spawn a wight.





> I'm still baffled by the fact you can wound an Air Elemental with non-magical weapon. What's up - is it bleeding? Did we damaged its vital organs? Or, maybe, cut off pieces of its body?..


It's not really based on the rules, as far as I know, but the way I rationalize this sort of thing is like so: When you "damage" an air elemental you're not physically doing anything to it, because it doesn't have a physical body. But since D&D-land is a magical world, the act of passing a weapon through the air elemental's body with hostile intent has a metaphysical effect, which is to disrupt the magical energies that create the elemental's physical form. It's this magical disruption, not any physical effect, that is the damage you do.

----------


## Jervis

> It's not really based on the rules, as far as I know, but the way I rationalize this sort of thing is like so: When you "damage" an air elemental you're not physically doing anything to it, because it doesn't have a physical body. But since D&D-land is a magical world, the act of passing a weapon through the air elemental's body with hostile intent has a metaphysical effect, which is to disrupt the magical energies that create the elemental's physical form. It's this magical disruption, not any physical effect, that is the damage you do.


So what happens if you have a stick and believe its a +12 gargantuan fullblade? Jokes aside I imagine elementals as not being made of strictly thing but a magical protoplasm + thing. So youre hitting the elemental magical goop that makes up its actual body.

----------


## Tzardok

Air elementals aren't gaseous by the rules. So they apparantly are made of solid air. As there are things like solid fire on the Elemental Plane of Fire, I don't see a problem with that.

----------


## Vaern

> Not quite. They've got the caster level, but to create the phylactery you have to be able "to cast spells".


A while back there was a thread debating whether supernatural abilities that emulate a spell's effect could be used to qualify for a feat or prestige class that had that spell as a prerequisite, and the general consensus was "no."  SLAs are described as working just like casting a spell, but supernatural abilities are considered to be magical but not spell-like.  Not subject to spell resistance, counterpselling, or dispelling.

A duergar has SLAs that are cast as a wizard of twice his class level, though.  If SLAs are just like casting a spell then a level 6 duergar of any class is effectively a 12th level wizard and should be able to craft a phylactery.
Unfortunately, demilich requires _being_ a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric of 21st level or higher, not just _casting_ as one.  Otherwise a duergar might qualify as a 22nd level wizard with an actual level of 11.

----------


## Lucas Yew

- The very existence of the Multiple Attack Penalty.
- And of course, Full Attack crippling your movement per round.

Both look like malicious parodies of "realism"(snort), just to hose those fantasy character archetypes who rely on non-save offense rules wise...

----------


## ShurikVch

> I don't think there's a problem here. A simulacrum reduced to 0 hp is destroyed, not slain, so it won't spawn a wight.


While simulacrum reduced to 0 *hp* may be destroyed - simulacrum reduced to 0 *HD* is definitely slain:



> A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain.


(Let alone the fact neither "destroyed" nor "slain" are inherently game terms; "destroyed" is usually used for non-living creatures - like Undead or Constructs -, and "slain" for living creatures - such as a simulacrum of Humanoid)





> Not quite. They've got the caster level, but to create the phylactery you have to be able "to cast spells".


You're correct. I forgot about this part...



> A while back there was a thread debating whether supernatural abilities that emulate a spell's effect could be used to qualify for a feat or prestige class that had that spell as a prerequisite, and the general consensus was "no."  SLAs are described as working just like casting a spell, but supernatural abilities are considered to be magical but not spell-like.  Not subject to spell resistance, counterpselling, or dispelling.


Well, certain variants of Monk have spell-like abilities - such as Phoenix Disciple with Fire Stride

Note: the Su being said "_Not subject to spell resistance, counterpselling, or dispelling_" is weird in its own right - because what's the heck will happen if we cast _Slow_ on one of those creatures with the _Haste_ (Su)?



> _Slow_ counters and dispels _haste_.






> It's not really based on the rules, as far as I know, but the way I rationalize this sort of thing is like so: When you "damage" an air elemental you're not physically doing anything to it, because it doesn't have a physical body. But since D&D-land is a magical world, the act of passing a weapon through the air elemental's body with hostile intent has a metaphysical effect, which is to disrupt the magical energies that create the elemental's physical form. It's this magical disruption, not any physical effect, that is the damage you do.


In that case - shouldn't a simple handful of dust thrown cause damage to it as well? I mean: dust is an earth - element which is metaphysically antithetical to the air; and you're definitely throwing it with hostile intent...




> Air elementals aren't gaseous by the rules.


Which is a problem by itself - like a character which morphed into a swarm but don't get the Swarm subtype



> So they apparantly are made of solid air. As there are things like solid fire on the Elemental Plane of Fire, I don't see a problem with that.


Please, source for the "solid air" (and, for that matter, "solid fire")


One more weird-by-RAW thing - _Spark of Life_ spell. While intentions are clear, execution is...



> It loses its immunity to effects that require a Fortitude save, as well as its invulnerability to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects. However, an undead affected by this spell gains a bonus on its Fortitude saves equal to its Charisma bonus (if any). (The bonus doesn't apply to Fortitude saves against effects that also affect objects.) It must breathe, eat, and sleep just like a normal living creature (though the last two aren't likely to come into play thanks to the spell's short duration).


Firstly - in the case of a Skeleton (or other "barebone" Undead; or Raiment), how is it supposed to be affected by the disease or poison? I mean - which, exactly, organs would it damage? And how it would even spread through the body?
Secondly: must breathe, eat, and sleep? How our example skeleton is supposed to do it? Did it have digestive system, windpipe, bronchi, or lungs? The same question for a Flameskull? Or how about Raiment? Is this spell intended to *suffocate* the affected Undead (unless it's a Vampire, Necropolitan, or incorporeal)?

----------


## Vaern

> Note: the Su being said "_Not subject to spell resistance, counterpselling, or dispelling_" is weird in its own right - because what's the heck will happen if we cast _Slow_ on one of those creatures with the _Haste_ (Su)?


I can't think of a creature with built-in haste off the top of my head. Got a link to something on the SRD to look at?
_Usually_ a supernatural ability based on a spell effect comes with some sort of caveat. "This ability functions as X spell, except..."  sort of thing. There might be an exception to the "can't be dispelled" rule if the ability functions as a spell that is explicitly dispelled by another effect, but that seems like it falls squarely in Rule 0 territory. At any rate, a simple casting of dispel magic would be ineffective.

----------


## Gemini476

> Please, source for the "solid air" (and, for that matter, "solid fire")


IIRC this is old lore from the original 1E Manual of the Planes where everything in the Inner Planes was made out of those elements, but some remnants of it remain in 3E:



> The coals themselves are only slightly cooler pieces of elemental fire[.]
> [...]
> Most of the Elemental Plane of Fire consists of slow-moving solid flame, but there are faster-moving, hotter regions. [...] Such falls of liquid flame often breach into the areas between planes[.]


At a glance the 3E MoP doesn't say this about different states of air, preferring instead to lean on the random floating rocks from the Plane of Earth and whatnot, but yeah. Lots on fire. (Probably because magma is an easy answer for "what does liquid fire look like", but also because this is all pretty well-established with the Brass City being such a big planar destination and whatnot.)

As for elementals, they're "made up of the property of that plane". A good example of "solid air", then, would be a Djinn... but given that Air Elementals themselves aren't incorporeal or anything, they're presumably also very physical.

Remember, these are very magical fantasy creatures. Of _course_ you can bludgeon a living whirlwind until it dissipates, that's just basic fantasy logic.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Remember, these are very magical fantasy creatures. Of _course_ you can bludgeon a living whirlwind until it dissipates, that's just basic fantasy logic.


Always remember that application of real-world science to fantasy settings makes the Tressyms cry.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I can't think of a creature with built-in haste off the top of my head. Got a link to something on the SRD to look at?
> _Usually_ a supernatural ability based on a spell effect comes with some sort of caveat. "This ability functions as X spell, except..."  sort of thing. There might be an exception to the "can't be dispelled" rule if the ability functions as a spell that is explicitly dispelled by another effect, but that seems like it falls squarely in Rule 0 territory. At any rate, a simple casting of dispel magic would be ineffective.


*Spoiler: Examples:*
Show

Clay Golem:



> *Haste (Su)*: After it has engaged in at least 1 round of combat, a clay golem can haste itself once per day as a free action. The effect lasts 3 rounds and is otherwise the same as the spell.


Clay Half-Golem (_Monster Manual II_):



> Haste (Su): After it has engaged in at least 1 round of combat on a given day, a clay half-golem can use haste upon itself once during that day as a free action. The effect lasts 3 rounds and is otherwise the same as the spell.


Demonically Fused Elemental (_Dragon Compendium_):



> *Haste (Su)*: Because the creature is an actual composite entity, and both the demon and the elemental are - at least somewhat - separately aware, the demonically fused elemental continually gains the benefits of _haste_.


Living Spell:



> _Spell Effect (Su):_ A creature hit by a living spell's slam attack is subjected to the normal effect of the spell or spells making up the creature, as if it were within the area or effect of the spell itself. Saves apply as normal for the spell; the DC is 10 + spell level + Cha modifier.


Monster of Legend (_Monster Manual II_):



> Haste (Su): The creature is supernaturally quick. It can take an extra partial action each round, as if affected by a haste spell.


Wandering Dragon (_Dragon_ #313):



> _Restless Energy (Su):_ As a free action, a wandering dragon can produce a _haste_ effect, as the spell, upon itself. This ability is usable three limes per day, and the effect lasts for 1 round per caster level of the dragon. If the dragon does not have a specified caster level for its spells, it gains no benefit from this ability.








> IIRC this is old lore from the original 1E Manual of the Planes where everything in the Inner Planes was made out of those elements, but some remnants of it remain in 3E:


Nothing against the 1E _Manual of the Planes_, but if we would use it - we would be forced to get rid of Spelljammers (because cosmologies of 1E _Manual of the Planes_ and _Spelljammer_ are mutually exclusive)




> As for elementals, they're "made up of the property of that plane". A good example of "solid air", then, would be a Djinn... but given that Air Elementals themselves aren't incorporeal or anything, they're presumably also very physical.


Djinn are Outsiders - not Elementals




> Remember, these are very magical fantasy creatures. Of _course_ you can bludgeon a living whirlwind until it dissipates, that's just basic fantasy logic.


And can you give me any examples of non-D&D-derivatives where such things ever happened?
In the certain poem of Alexander Pope, the sylphs - air spirits - interpose their airy bodies between the blades of the scissors (to no effect whatsoever).





> Always remember that application of real-world science to fantasy settings makes the Tressyms cry.





> This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world. That is to say that while wizards cast spells, deities channel power to clerics, and dragons raze villages, the world is round, the laws of physics are applicable, and most people act like real people. The reason for this assumption is that unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect.





> *Material Plane:* This plane is the one most familiar to characters and is usually the "home base" for a standard D&D campaign. The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does.

----------


## Scots Dragon

Yes but that's not talking about the elemental spirits from the planes of pure elemental force, is it?

----------


## Bohandas

What the heck is the thought process behind attacks of opportunity when an opponent leaves a threatened square, that doesn't make any sense to me, especially given that attacking someone who _enters_ your threatened area requires a readied action, but for some reason taking a swipe at someone as they run past is free and doesn't even warrant a penalty to attack roll

----------


## Jervis

> What the heck is the thought process behind attacks of opportunity when an opponent leaves a threatened square, that doesn't make any sense to me, especially given that attacking someone who _enters_ your threatened area requires a readied action, but for some reason taking a swipe at someone as they run past is free and doesn't even warrant a penalty to attack roll


Thats kinda reasonable. They move past you without paying much attention so you can swipe at them

----------


## Pezzo

> Thats kinda reasonable. They move past you without paying much attention so you can swipe at them


you must be a very angry person xd

----------


## Vaern

> *Spoiler: Examples:*
> Show
> 
> Clay Golem:
> 
> Clay Half-Golem (_Monster Manual II_):
> 
> Demonically Fused Elemental (_Dragon Compendium_):
> 
> ...


I'm going to go with my previous suggestion that _dispel magic_ would be ineffective against any of these, though _slow_ would work since the ability functions as the spell and the spell is specifically countered by _slow_.
It's also worth noting that the PHB's description of "dispel" lists a few different meanings for the word.  You'd probably think of dispelling something as removing the effect, which is one definition, but suppressing an effect is _also_ considered a form of dispelling.  I propose that _slow_, when cast on a _haste_d creature, suppresses the effect for the spell's duration rather than terminate the effect entirely.  Both effects are still in play and active on the affected creature, but they cancel each other out as equal and opposite forces and do nothing as long as they both persist.

The living spell is interesting, though.  It kind of looks like its supernatural ability itself is just the proc-on-hit part.  The spell effect resulting from the attack _might_ actually function just like a regular spell.  "You are subjected to the normal effects of the spell, as though you were in the spell's area or effect."  I would personally treat that as a regular spell, subject to all the normal means of counteracting it.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> you must be a very angry person xd


Some people just wake up and choose violence.

They get the most XP.

----------


## Jervis

> Some people just wake up and choose violence.
> 
> They get the most XP.


Violence is not the answer. Its the question, the answer to which is always yes.

----------


## Seward

> What the heck is the thought process behind attacks of opportunity when an opponent leaves a threatened square


It used to be in AD&D that if you were next to an enemy and moved away, they got a free attack.  There might or might not have been a way to avoid that "a careful back away" that is the equivalent of a withdrawal, I don't remember.  (AD&D did not have any concept of a full attack = full round action.  You move up and take as many attacks as you are entitled to.  I don't think they had a charge maneuver either, if they were 5' further than your movement rate, you could only double move up or use a missile weapon).

When they came up with AOO rules, they probably wanted to keep that flavor.

----------


## Venger

> What the heck is the thought process behind attacks of opportunity when an opponent leaves a threatened square, that doesn't make any sense to me, especially given that attacking someone who _enters_ your threatened area requires a readied action, but for some reason taking a swipe at someone as they run past is free and doesn't even warrant a penalty to attack roll


In 3.0, we had facing rules, so which direction your mini was facing mattered. When someone fled your threatened area, they turned their back on you, which made them vulnerable to being slapped in the back of the head. We axed facing rules in the 3.5 update because they were really confusing and inevitably, when you move your guy on the map you're going to move it a little bit just by accident but I don't think the aoo rules changed.

----------


## Silly Name

> In 3.0, we had facing rules, so which direction your mini was facing mattered. When someone fled your threatened area, they turned their back on you, which made them vulnerable to being slapped in the back of the head. We axed facing rules in the 3.5 update because they were really confusing and inevitably, when you move your guy on the map you're going to move it a little bit just by accident but I don't think the aoo rules changed.


I mean, to me it still makes sense even without the facing rules. If you're moving away from an armed opponent, you either keep your guard up (and thus move slower), or try to bolt for it but also drop your guard, giving said opponent an opening.

Likewise, passing by a threatened space is going to leave openings for your enemies to try to attack you unless you take some measures to not give them openings.

----------


## noob

Another reason for the "hit people leaving threatened space" rule is that it allows to limit movement through lines of adventurers thus making it possible to actually be in the backline and not just have all opponents just walk though the front line and hit the backline without any punishment.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Another reason for the "hit people leaving threatened space" rule is that it allows to limit movement through lines of adventurers thus making it possible to actually be in the backline and not just have all opponents just walk though the front line and hit the backline without any punishment.


Pretty much this. 

It allows for the fighters to actually do their _job_ as front-line defence.

----------


## Seward

Earlier editions of D&D had facing rules too, it dates back to the days when it was all a miniatures system.  I remember that you were supposed to deprive people of shield bonuses if you attacked them from the sword side, things like that.

Like weapon speeds and weapon bonuses/penalties vs armor types, that minutia was usually ignored at most actual games I played.  My memories of AD&D play had front and back, and back didn't get shield bonuses and I think had some other minor penalty beyond vulnerability to thieves.  Most CRPGs prior to Balder's gate were implemented so that the last guy who hit an opponent got it to face their way, and a thief could only get backstab if he went opposite.  Balder's gate made it stupidly hard for backstab to work, to the point where most people played rogues for epic trap-laying only, and traded out backstab for other features if at all possible.  Except for the backstab enthusiasts who somehow figured out how to do it reliably in a real-time-with-pause combat system.  Those guys loved thieves.

It's possible CRPG influence on D&D got people thinking facing was stupid, and by 3.5 that idea was pretty dead.  (3.0 came out when the Infinity Engine games were at peak popularity, one Icewind Dale game used a kind of beta 3.0).  Honestly sneak attack based on flanking or just acting first or enemy being unable to perceive you was a much easier mechanic to deal with.

----------


## ShurikVch

I can't find rules for it right now, but pretty sure somebody mentioned this: if flanking creatures on the opposite sides of mounted character are able to hit the mount - they're able to hit the rider too, even in case if the flanking creatures are goblins, the rider - Jermlaine, and the mount is Tarrasque... (i. e. - regardless the mount's size, they're both able to hit the rider - despite being on the opposite sides of it)

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

Perception rules are _really_ dumb, and they lead to some really stupid results.

For instance, any vision mode other than darkvision relies on light sources where _you_ are, not where _other people_ are, which means if you're hiding in a deep shadow but another person is standing in the middle of the same room holding a lit torch, you probably can't see them, since you're rendered blind without some other way to see. And since Spot takes a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance between you and a target, it's quite likely that nobody standing on the surface of Earth can see the sun or the light therefrom. 

Likewise, Listen takes that penalty for distance, as well, and it's quite probable that you can't hear a pitched battle a couple hundred feet away.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Perception rules are _really_ dumb, and they lead to some really stupid results.
> 
> For instance, any vision mode other than darkvision relies on light sources where _you_ are, not where _other people_ are, which means if you're hiding in a deep shadow but another person is standing in the middle of the same room holding a lit torch, you probably can't see them, since you're rendered blind without some other way to see. And since Spot takes a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance between you and a target, it's quite likely that nobody standing on the surface of Earth can see the sun or the light therefrom. 
> 
> Likewise, Listen takes that penalty for distance, as well, and it's quite probable that you can't hear a pitched battle a couple hundred feet away.


That's not exactly how it works: light source can be detected - by DC 20 Spot check - from the distance of (its light radius)*20; and would be detected automatically from the half of this distance
Considering you're mentioned a torch - it's 20*20=400' - for the Spot 20, and 200' - for automatic detection. 200' (40 squares) -one heck of a room!..
And any light source, when you're withing its light radius (such as the Sun), is detected automatically - no checks needed

For the Listen - a battle in 200' is DC 10. If something prevents you from "taking 10" - then blame *it* on the unnoticed battle, not the Listen rules in general...

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> That's not exactly how it works: light source can be detected - by DC 20 Spot check - from the distance of (its light radius)*20; and would be detected automatically from the half of this distance
> Considering you're mentioned a torch - it's 20*20=400' - for the Spot 20, and 200' - for automatic detection. 200' (40 squares) -one heck of a room!..
> And any light source, when you're withing its light radius (such as the Sun), is detected automatically - no checks needed


Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you _unable to see,_ and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.




> For the Listen - a battle in 200' is DC 10. If something prevents you from "taking 10" - then blame *it* on the unnoticed battle, not the Listen rules in general...


The Listen DC for a battle is only at -10, and 210' away is a -21 penalty to your Listen check. For a fighter with 10 Wis and no ranks in Listen (which is quite common for fighters, given they're MAD, don't need Wis for much, and don't get Spot as a class skill), Taking 10 won't help at all.

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you _unable to see,_ and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.


Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;

The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're _expected_ to use your common sense.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;
> 
> The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're _expected_ to use your common sense.


Tell that to drown-healing.

Yes, you're expected to use common sense to make the rules make sense, but it's still houserules.

----------


## Morphic tide

> Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;
> 
> The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're _expected_ to use your common sense.


It comes down entirely to the fact that Spot uses the viewer's situation rather than the subject's to determine lighting, meaning that _every layer_ of the rules makes the incorrect assumption that standing in darkness makes it harder to see.

At its conclusion, the game uses the Blinded condition for _standing in_ total darkness, which creates a large pile of ridiculous results. There is _nothing_ in how the Spot rules work to fix the problem.

It isn't "arcane alien legalese", it's "the game handles lighting backwards".

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

And remember, this thread is about "Hilarious things you've found in RAW," and houserules ain't RAW.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you _unable to see,_ and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.





> *Complete Darkness:* In general, a light source can be spotted (Spot DC 20) at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination, if the area is otherwise in complete darkness. For example, a sunrod can be seen from 600 feet away, provided that nothing obstructs the line of sight. An observer who fails this Spot check automatically spots the light source at half that distance.


See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.




> The Listen DC for a battle is only at -10, and 210' away is a -21 penalty to your Listen check. For a fighter with 10 Wis and no ranks in Listen (which is quite common for fighters, given they're MAD, don't need Wis for much, and don't get Spot as a class skill), Taking 10 won't help at all.


Well, our supposed fighter may actually roll Listen and get 11+, and the masterwork tools are affordable even for 1st-level fighter
But you're right - in the sense the Listen DC Modifiers are on the steep side: IRL calm human conversation can be heard (according to different sources) from 0,05-0,2 km (exact distance depends on air pressure/humidity and background noises level). By the DC modifier, it should be check somewhere from 16 to 65...

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.


If you're in complete darkness, you can't see someone who isn't, even if they're holding a torch. Go outside on a very dark night. You are blind. You can't even see the stars in the sky or the campfire sitting a few hundred feet away with nothing between you and it.

It's the same principle either way.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> And since Spot takes a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance between you and a target, it's quite likely that nobody standing on the surface of Earth can see the sun or the light therefrom.


Except that you don't need to make a Spot check to see the sun. The Spot skill lays out a number of scenarios where you have to make a Spot check, and "seeing a large, glowing object in plain sight" is not one of them.

----------


## ShurikVch

> If you're in complete darkness, you can't see someone who isn't, even if they're holding a torch. Go outside on a very dark night. You are blind. You can't even see the stars in the sky or the campfire sitting a few hundred feet away with nothing between you and it.
> 
> It's the same principle either way.


Eh, I don't get it: is it a game-talk or IRL-talk?  :Small Confused: 
Because - for the IRL - "the farthest from which an average unaided human could see a candle is about 1.6 miles."
For the game - I just gave you the RAW quote which disproved it...

----------


## Jervis

> See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.
> 
> 
> Well, our supposed fighter may actually roll Listen and get 11+, and the masterwork tools are affordable even for 1st-level fighter
> But you're right - in the sense the Listen DC Modifiers are on the steep side: IRL calm human conversation can be heard (according to different sources) from 0,05-0,2 km (exact distance depends on air pressure/humidity and background noises level). By the DC modifier, it should be check somewhere from 16 to 65...


FWIW the darkness rules could fall into a situation where it contradicts rules from the core books so it technically could just do nothing. 

Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that? This is the biggest raw anomaly. People just assume theres a masterwork tool for everything and treat it like its a passive modifier. What even could you use as a masterwork tool for Listening? Same goes for things like Concentration where the check is made reactively. How are you using a tool? Ill never forgive the 3.5 devs for this. Ive had so many players ask to buy 50GP fidget spinners to get a +2 to concentration checks.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that?


Ear trumpet?

----------


## Scots Dragon

> Tell that to drown-healing.
> 
> Yes, you're expected to use common sense to make the rules make sense, but it's still houserules.





> And remember, this thread is about "Hilarious things you've found in RAW," and houserules ain't RAW.


The fact that you would _adjudicate_ the rules is also rules as written.




> *Adjudicating*
> When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, youre in charge. That doesnt mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that youre the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players dont rebel (more on that later).
> 
> To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules. Youre not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of whats in them, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book.
> 
> Often a situation will arise that isnt explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon a situation that the rules dont seem to cover, consider the following courses of action.
> Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DMs whims.When in doubt, remember this handy little rule: Favorable conditions add +2 to any d20 roll, and unfavorable conditions penalize the roll by 2. Youll be surprised how often this DMs best friend will solve problems.
> If you come upon an apparent contradiction in the rules, consider these factors when adjudicating.
> A rule found in a rulebook overrules one found in a published adventure, unless the rule presented in the published adventure deals with something specific and limited to the adventure itself.Choose the rule that you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication.

----------


## Pinkie Pyro

That illusion(shadow) and evocation(Darkness) don't have the same aversion to (light) spells.

It really feels like something that they thematically would have added, so having an N+1 light spell cancels shadowcraft illusion, but no, you're only screwed if you're making darkness, not shadows.

Looping back to invisible spell weirdness, using invisible spell (teleport) should cause you to visibly stay in your old location permanently, as the visible manifestation of teleport would be disappearing from your initial location and appearing in your new location.

----------


## RSGA

It should only be instantaneously there, both because teleport is instantaneous and because it doesn't suppress any secondary effects. And it's hard to argue that not being seen isn't part and parcel of not being there in the same way that visible flames is part of being set on fire for a lot of temperatures. The example for Invisible Spell even says that things lit on fire by an Invisible Fireball will still burn with visible flames.

So Invisible Teleport should probably just cause disagreements on how you're not there, not that you're not there.

----------


## Scots Dragon

You just vanish with no visible flash of light or swirling energy to indicate you've teleported. You just sorta jump-cut away.

----------


## InvisibleBison

The difficulty with invisible spell is that the visual manifestation of a spell is not a defined rules term, so what if anything it means for any given spell is usually rather ambiguous.

----------


## YellowJohn

This has probably already been mentioned, but Thrown Weapons. Is there anything, anywhere, that adjusts their range for size and/or strength?
As it stands, a Quasit can throw a Shot Put just as far as a Titan - and with greater accuracy. Yes I know the Quasit throws a smaller shot put, but come on.
The Titan starts accruing range penalties _inside their reach_, which is just ridiculous.

----------


## Vaern

> Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that? This is the biggest raw anomaly. People just assume theres a masterwork tool for everything and treat it like its a passive modifier. What even could you use as a masterwork tool for Listening? Same goes for things like Concentration where the check is made reactively. How are you using a tool? Ill never forgive the 3.5 devs for this. Ive had so many players ask to buy 50GP fidget spinners to get a +2 to concentration checks.


Masterwork tools are generic and applicable to whatever skill they were made for. They are, of course, subject to DM approval depending on how ridiculous they are. I'd let someone get away with the ear horn for listen checks, a spyglass for spot, magnifying glass for search, books for knowledge checks related to specific subjects... Certainly not a fidget spinner for concentration, but I might let someone get away with using something like an orb as a focus to help maintain concentration on spells.

----------


## loky1109

> Certainly not a fidget spinner for concentration, but I might let someone get away with using something like an orb as a focus to help maintain concentration on spells.

----------


## Godskook

> Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you _unable to see,_ and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.


You're just reading the rules wrong.

The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.  This comes first and is unequivocal.  It is also quite clear as to whom's actions are being limited.  The character who might be spotted, or hidden.  They simply cannot.  They are seen.  No mention here is made as any requirement as to where the viewer needs to stand, as it is immaterial to the determination.  You are in bright light, you cannot hide, I get to see you.  Period, full stop.  End of *PARAGRAPH.*

The rules then go on to describe in very similar language and clarity about shadowy illumination(read: "shadow"), and again, the relevant criteria is placed on the creature to be seen, not the one to see.

Finally, the rules go on to describe what happens in complete darkness, and while this paragraph is vague, it is fundamentally required within English to read things within their context.  You cannot isolate this text from the formula of it's predecessors, which give a first-order interpretation for what is being said here.  Which means that despite the more ambiguous and twistable reading, we must pick interpretations that most-align with our previous understanding.  Since we've had two paragraphs of text with which to see the example of "it is the creature to be seen's position within this illumination category that matters, the interpretation of the third paragraph we must take, if we can, is one where that same holds true.  And low and behold, the last paragraph *CAN* be read that way.

So glad Scots Dragon could start tapping the sign.

----------


## Vaern

> You're just reading the rules wrong.
> 
> The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.  This comes first and is unequivocal.


Technically, he's still right. It says all characters can _see_ clearly in an area of bright light, not that they can _be seen_ clearly. The creature in darkness is still effectively blind, and all other creatures are treated as invisible.

----------


## Saint-Just

> Technically, he's still right. It says all characters can _see_ clearly in an area of bright light, not that they can _be seen_ clearly. The creature in darkness is still effectively blind, and all other creatures are treated as invisible.


Sounds ambiguous. More natural interpretation (I do not mean more logical, just following the usual structure of sentences) would be "characters who are themselves in an area of bright light can see clearly". You can tro to interpret "in" as "into" and decide that "in an area of the bright light" modifies "see" instead of "characters", but that's a more convoluted interpretation and in any case one possible interpretation out of a few.

----------


## Morphic tide

> You're just reading the rules wrong.
> 
> The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly.  This comes first and is unequivocal.  It is also quite clear as to whom's actions are being limited.  The character who might be spotted, or hidden.  They simply cannot.  They are seen.  No mention here is made as any requirement as to where the viewer needs to stand, as it is immaterial to the determination.  You are in bright light, you cannot hide, I get to see you.  Period, full stop.  End of *PARAGRAPH.*


Actually there's semantic ambiguity here because "hide" refers to the entire skill, both the act of initiating it (which requires a break of visibility by default) and successfully moving elsewhere/avoiding being spotted to the next round. The Hide skill itself makes no mention of such, Ranger's HiPS has its only qualifier be "natural terrain", and Shadowdancer's HiPS seems to be the only thing on the end of the Hide skill that references lighting in the SRD.

Furthermore, Shadowy illumination is described as follows:

"In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself."

Since this described hide as in the check to start, and Bright Light states you can hide _with invisibility or cover_, it seems to be referring to "the check to start hiding". Because the rule in question is ambiguous as to _what part_ of the Hide skill is invalid, allows it _with cover_ under bright light, the lower lighting says you may _start_ hiding from it, and Bright Light is "is daytime", the most functional reading is "you need Invisibility or cover to _make a Hide check to conceal yourself_ in bright light".

Edit: In simpler terms, the "hide" mentioned seems to be the pseudo-action check itself, rather than the act of moving.

Additionally, the Hide skill's basic mode of function is the check following you where you cannot make it, in that you roll, then leave cover, and the result is the Spot DC to see you once you've left cover. Specifically allowing hide while behind cover makes zero sense if this is not the intent, because you don't need to roll to see if you're concealed from people on the other side of an obstruction, causing the roll to do nothing because you're seen the moment you leave cover. Thus, the only coherent reading, given other parts of the paragraph itself in addition to the Hide skill's text, is that it is specifically needing invisibility or cover to make the check.




> Finally, the rules go on to describe what happens in complete darkness, and while this paragraph is vague, it is fundamentally required within English to read things within their context.  You cannot isolate this text from the formula of it's predecessors, which give a first-order interpretation for what is being said here.


I'm sorry, what about ten listed points referencing Blinded creatures makes you think they do not have the condition? Which specifically notes that any check or action based on vision, such as _reading_ or Spot checks, automatically fail? Non-actions with no DC still fail in total darkness, because you are Blind. Period, end-of-sentence, any other reading results in people who have literally had their eyes blown out of their skull seeing things.

----------


## ShurikVch

Material components for _Create Crawling Claw_ are:



> Clippings from a ghoul's fingernails, and a ring that someone else lost.


Components:



> *Material (M)*
> A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process.


Thus, we're destroying



to create

----------


## noob

> Material components for _Create Crawling Claw_ are:
> 
> Components:
> 
> 
> Thus, we're destroying
> 
> 
> 
> to create


Imagine a Sauron powered crawling hand: Sauron would try to get that hand to get back the power of the ring.

----------


## Kama Itachi

Rainbow Servant is supposed to grant only six spell levels, but because the Spell section of the PrC wasn't edited carefully and text trumps table, you get a spell EVERY level on top of its really good class features.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

This one made me grin:



> Making Mistakes
> 
> A magic item that allows the characters to move through walls
> unhindered, giving them easy access to all sorts of places you do
> not want them to go (at least without great effort), is a mistake.
> A 4th-level spell that kills multiple foes with no saving throw is
> a mistake. *A race without a level adjustment that has bonuses of
> +4 to Strength and Dexterity is a mistake.*


One of these things is not like the others...  :Small Confused: 




> Rainbow Servant is supposed to grant only six spell levels, but because the Spell section of the PrC wasn't edited carefully and text trumps table, you get a spell EVERY level on top of its really good class features.


The only good class feature Rainbow Servant grants is cleric spells, as a capstone. 
It also grants you a couple mediocre domains with weak powers and spells you already have and some flavor stuff.

And if it cost you 4 levels of casting progression it would be completely worthless.

After all you can just go wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10 and lose one less level of casting, get double the spell slots, can choose domains that are actually good, get cleric spells at level 4 at the latest instead of 15...

Why would anyone ever take Rainbow Servant with 6/10 casting? "Text trumps table" really saved the day here.

----------


## Seward

> Why would anyone ever take Rainbow Servant with 6/10 casting? "Text trumps table" really saved the day here.


The Text Trumps Table Rainbow servants should be wielding 1d43 Scorpion Whips (a Sandstorm item never getting errata and never reprinted, in spite of being an obvious typo.  Not text trumps table, more like "table obviously wrong but never fixed")

Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended".  But then a lot of stuff is pretty bad if you are super strict about "rules as written" which means those games can be fun too if everybody is in the spirit of it.

Just be prepared to fight weapon users that all uses some variation of scorpion whips, instead of longswords.  Because average damage of 22 on a one-handed weapon with 15' reach (but no AOOs) is worth a single exotic weapon feat vs the 4.5-5 you usually get.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> The Text Trumps Table Rainbow servants should be wielding 1d43 Scorpion Whips (a Sandstorm item never getting errata and never reprinted, in spite of being an obvious typo.  Not text trumps table, more like "table obviously wrong but never fixed")
> 
> Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended".  But then a lot of stuff is pretty bad if you are super strict about "rules as written" which means those games can be fun too if everybody is in the spirit of it.
> 
> Just be prepared to fight weapon users that all uses some variation of scorpion whips, instead of longswords.  Because average damage of 22 on a one-handed weapon with 15' reach (but no AOOs) is worth a single exotic weapon feat vs the 4.5-5 you usually get.


There's a difference between a weapon whose damage is obviously a typo and a prestige class where the amount of casting it's supposed to provide is ambiguous. No one really thinks that scorpion whips are intended to do 1d43 damage (if for no other reason than no one has a d43), but there's no clear reason why rainbow servant shouldn't be full casting.

----------


## Jervis

> There's a difference between a weapon whose damage is obviously a typo and a prestige class where the amount of casting it's supposed to provide is ambiguous. No one really thinks that scorpion whips are intended to do 1d43 damage (if for no other reason than no one has a d43), but there's no clear reason why rainbow servant shouldn't be full casting.


This is something a lot of people forget in this argument. Speaking as someone who makes a lot of homebrew table mistakes are easy to make. While you can say that from a balance perspective the class probably is meant to loose casting its entirely possible that the author flip flopped between one or the other when writing. In which case its actually kinda hard to determine which was the intended end product.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

> Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended".


Seriously? The very post you quoted points out _why_ 6/10 Rainbow Servant makes no sense.

It's because at 6/10 it does nothing another class -the Mystic Theurge - doesn't do better in every way. 
It literally does not offer a single ability a mystic theurge doesn't get while giving you less than half the number of spells/day. Do you think that's _balanced_?

A plain mystic theurge isn't exactly high-tier cheese, and a 6/10 rainbow servant is objectively worse in every way.

It's like making a melee PrC that's exactly like the fighter but doesn't get bonus feats. It makes no sense. There is not a single balance-related reason for RS to be 6/10.
Why would you think that was _intended_? I don't think the designers were _trying_ to make useless prestige classes.

----------


## Vaern

> Seriously? The very post you quoted points out _why_ 6/10 Rainbow Servant makes no sense.
> 
> It's because at 6/10 it does nothing another class -the Mystic Theurge - doesn't do better in every way. 
> It literally does not offer a single ability a mystic theurge doesn't get while giving you less than half the number of spells/day. Do you think that's _balanced_?
> 
> A plain mystic theurge isn't exactly high-tier cheese, and a 6/10 rainbow servant is objectively worse in every way.
> 
> It's like making a melee PrC that's exactly like the fighter but doesn't get bonus feats. It makes no sense. There is not a single balance-related reason for RS to be 6/10.
> Why would you think that was _intended_? I don't think the designers were _trying_ to make useless prestige classes.


The two classes aren't meant to do the same thing, though.  
Mystic Theurge is a generic PrC that levels two separate classes' spellcasting progression at once as a way to efficiently progress a multiclass character.
Rainbow Servant is a thematic, strictly single-caster class that adds a divine flair to an otherwise strictly arcane character.  It's not meant to be powerful, it's meant to add flavor to the game.

That being said, Rainbow Servant is better than Mystic Theurge in several aspects. 

Mystic Theurge will typically require wizard 3/cleric 3 to gain entry.  By the time you hit level 10 in Mystic Theurge at character level 16, you're casting at level 13 in each class.  After that you need to start leveling each class separately again, ending up with wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10 and casting at 15th level by 20.

Rainbow Servant only requires wizard 5.  After that, you're only casting as wizard 11/cleric 11 once you hit your PrC capstone at level 15.  At this point you are _technically_ behind Mystic Theurge due to missing 4 levels of progression, but this is one important aspect of Rainbow Servant's capstone: 
Your ability to learn and cast cleric spells applies not only to your existing wizard levels, but also to all future levels of wizard progression.  Outside of the prestige class's 10 levels, *you only need to level a single base class to progress casting for both spell lists.*  Since you don't need to worry about leveling wizard and cleric separately as a multiclass character, the Rainbow Servant will have caught up and passed Mystic Theurge in terms of caster level, casting at 16th level by level 20.

In addition, you have 5 levels to sink into another prestige class.  You can invest all of these levels into a single arcane prestige class and get some decent class features while also advancing your access to cleric spells since your divine spellcasting progression is tied directly to your wizard progression.  Since Mystic Theurge requires leveling wizard and cleric separately after maxing out the prestige class, your options along that route are much more limited as you will be restricted to two levels in a prestige class for each leg of your build.  *Rainbow Servant allows for more flexible and versatile character development.* 

Back to the highlights of Rainbow Servant's capstone:  The cleric spells, while divine, are considered to be part of your base class's spell list.  Since you are casting them as a wizard, they are based on intelligence.  *All of your spells are tied to a single ability score,* while Mystic Theurge is inherently MAD.
In addition, since your cleric spells are tied to your wizard caster level, a single instance of Practiced Spellcaster will allow you to cast all of your spells at your character level.  The Mystic Theurge route, which would end with wiz 5/clr 5/mystic theurge 10, would require two instances of Practiced Spellcaster to cast all of your spells a level below your actual level.
As far as spell resistance and saving throws go, *Rainbow Servant is more effective at penetrating an opponent's defenses when necessary*.

Finally:  The common Rainbow Servant cheese.  Mystic Theurges advance in two caster classes as if they were actually leveling normally in both classes simultaneously.  Rainbow Servants, on the other hand, learn and cast cleric spells* in the same way they learn and cast their base class's spells*.  This makes a small number of classes like the Warmage who, despite having a somewhat limited selection of spells available in their base class spell list, *automatically know and can spontaneously cast every spell that they have access to,* especially effective when paired with Rainbow Servant.  
Even if you were to refute every other thing I've said, the existence of this single exploit gives Rainbow Servants the potential to become completely and absolutely broken in a way that immediately invalidates your claim that they are objectively worse in every way.

Aspects in which Mystic Theurge is better:
Spells per day
Spells known (in most cases)
More consistent character advancement1

Aspects in which Rainbow Servant is better:
Single ability score determines maximum spell level you can cast for both spell lists
Single ability score determines all spells' saving throw DCs for both spell lists
Single base class's spellcasting ability advances caster level for both spell lists
Capstone ability grants a huge power boost to the character that makes a long-term investment in the class rewarding1
Naturally results in a higher caster level in the long run
Easier and less taxing to enhance spellcasting for both spell lists at once via feats, class features, and similar effects that would otherwise effect only a single class's spellcasting
More flexible options for character advancement
Opens a veritable floodgate for overpowered cheese

1 This is strictly a matter of opinion that can go either way, depending on personal preferences

Rainbow Servant is objectively better in _almost every way_, even while losing 4 levels of progression.

----------


## Jervis

The existence of archivist and early entry means that MT in practice doesnt really loose out on that much. Yes you shouldnt balance around early entry in most cases BUT seeing as its so easy and its what everyone does I think thats at least worth mentioning in discussion

----------


## RandomPeasant

> Rainbow Servant is supposed to grant only six spell levels, but because the Spell section of the PrC wasn't edited carefully and text trumps table, you get a spell EVERY level on top of its really good class features.


The hell "really good class features" are those? Outside the capstone, here's what it gives you:

The ability to _detect evil_. This is a 1st level Paladin ability, and not even the important one. At 7th level you get _detect chaos_ as well, putting you slightly ahead of that 1st level Paladin.

Access to the Good domain. This is a fine domain. You then follow it up with the Law domain, which gives you very little you weren't already getting from Good. Those Slaad better watch out now that you can hit them with _order's wrath_ instead of having _holy smite_ ignore them. You also get the Air domain, which again is fine, but not what I'd call "really good", even by the standards of domains.

You get flight. For a maximum of 10 minutes per day. Did you know that as a character who had 3rd level spells and then took four levels of a PrC, you are high enough level to cast _overland flight_?

You get _detect thoughts_. You know, the 2nd level spell you can sometimes use to solve mysteries. You get that at-will as a 15th or 16th level character. Plots that were on shaky ground long enough ago you can barely remember _tremble_ at your rainbow'd feat.




> Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended".


RAW v RAI has always been and will always be the wrong question. Diving the authors intent is extremely difficult, and they explicitly did things like remove the cap on magic items you can make with _wish_, single-handedly turning SLA _wish_ from fine to game-destroying, which raises serious questions about whether their intent is competent enough to be worth caring about. The correct question to ask is "RAW v makes a good game", and from that perspective the problem with Rainbow Servant is not that it's full casting, it's that it's completely backloaded. Rainbow Servant, even if you don't nerf it, is a mediocre PrC if you don't get the capstone. If you get the capstone (and are a Warmage or Beguiler), it is one of the best PrCs in the game. It needs to have its power progression smoothed over 10 levels, not have it be _even worse_ before it gets the capstone.




> Rainbow Servant is a thematic, strictly single-caster class that adds a divine flair to an otherwise strictly arcane character.  It's not meant to be powerful, it's meant to add flavor to the game.


A response springs to mind. "Flavor" and "power" do not and should not trade off. The idea that they do, or that it is desirable for them to do so, is the Oberoni Fallacy.




> Mystic Theurge will typically require wizard 3/cleric 3 to gain entry.  By the time you hit level 10 in Mystic Theurge at character level 16, you're casting at level 13 in each class.  After that you need to start leveling each class separately again, ending up with wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10 and casting at 15th level by 20.


I would consider that an obvious flaw of the Mystic Theurge, not really an advantage of the Rainbow Servant. In any case, it's perfectly possible to go into Arcane Heirophant after Mystic Theurge and maintain full progression on both sides. I suppose that's no longer directly comparable, as Druid isn't Cleric, but the spell lists do overlap a good bit.




> Mystic Theurge is inherently MAD.


What is "Archivist"?




> Even if you were to refute every other thing I've said, the existence of this single exploit gives Rainbow Servants the potential to become completely and absolutely broken in a way that immediately invalidates your claim that they are objectively worse in every way.


6/10 Rainbow Warsnake is not broken. It's not even very good. You gave up the prospect of casting level-appropriate spells, and you made the domains you did get during level-up way worse because you gave up the delicious caster levels _holy word_ and _dictum_ require. Rainbow Servant is a semi-justifiable power now for power later tradeoff. If you nerf its casting by four levels, it becomes flatly terrible even on a Warmage.

----------


## Vaern

> "Flavor" and "power" do not and should not trade off. The idea that they do, or that it is desirable for them to do so, is the Oberoni Fallacy.


Flavor and power _do_ trade off, quite frequently.  Simply saying that they don't is ignoring large chunks of published material.  Classes _very_ often trade out caster progression for class features.  To that end, an ability that seems essential to complete the aesthetic theme that the designer is aiming for may not be especially useful to the character that the class is being designed for, but it might still be strong enough that the designer has decided there needs to be some sort of tradeoff. 

For example, flight is a _very_ strong ability to the point of being regarded as basically essential as soon as it's reasonably available.  A lot of characters, particularly non-casters, would _love_ to have free flight as a class feature.  When your character is an arcane caster who has already been able to cast a spell for the same effect for several levels, though, it's a bit underwhelming. At this point they'll probably be thinking, "Oh, cool, that's a thing I can do.  I guess that'll save me a spell slot at some point." 

So what should the designer do about this?  Does the fact that it's not as useful to _this_ character matter?  Should they just grant the ability to this class for free with no tradeoff?  Or do they consider the value of the ability in a vacuum without regard for what kind of character it's going on?  Flight isn't a big deal to the wizard who may actually forget that he now has the ability baked into his character when preparing his spells for the day, but being able to sprout wings and fly for a few minutes per day could probably actually be considered a capstone ability for a martial prestige class.  There's also the option of simply not giving them the ability at all, of course, but in that case I'm sure the designer would feel that the class itself is incomplete.  

That is the state of almost the entirety of this class.  Its features aren't objectively bad in a vacuum, but a lot of them aren't particularly great for the character they're being applied to.  Thematically, though, the class is all about taking on aspects of a particular type of creature and gaining their abilities, so all of them are essential.

_Ideally_ you could always have the best of both worlds, but in practice that simply isn't what always happens.  In practice, we often get classes that are more concerned with fulfilling an aesthetic goal than actually being usable.  Look no further than the monk.  In this case, though, at least the Rainbow Servant's capstone is good enough that it's worth a second glance.

Also, that's not what the Oberoni Fallacy is.  The Oberoni Fallacy is suggesting that something is not a problem and then also offering rule 0 as a solution despite the fact that it is not a problem.  The suggestion that, "This class isn't underpowered.  You can change its spellcasting progression from two-thirds to full and it's just fine," might be an appropriate example.  An observation that some classes are designed in a way that prioritizes fluff while other prioritize crunch does not fall into this category.




> I would consider that an obvious flaw of the Mystic Theurge, not really an advantage of the Rainbow Servant


I agree, though it really doesn't make a difference how you look at it for the sake of this argument...  Whether it's a point against one or a point in favor of the other, the net result is effectively the same.




> In any case, it's perfectly possible to go into Arcane Heirophant after Mystic Theurge and maintain full progression on both sides. I suppose that's no longer directly comparable, as Druid isn't Cleric, but the spell lists do overlap a good bit.


I forgot that was a thing, I see it so rarely.  To be fair, though, "this option is available to Mystic Theurges who started druid instead of cleric" _is_ just as valid an argument as "this option is available to Rainbow Servants who started warmage instead of wizard."




> What is "Archivist"?


Whoops.  For some reason I was thinking archivists had some weird spellcasting rules like favored souls (wisdom to determine maximum spell level, charisma to determine saving throw DCs).  Been a while since I've looked at them outside of how they actually learn spells, my bad.

So you could play a druid and not have to worry so much about multiclassing outside of your PrC levels, or you could play an archivist and not have to worry about MAD, but you'll likely be hard pressed to find a build that mitigates all of the issues Mystic Theurge has which Rainbow Servant simply doesn't have to worry about.




> 6/10 Rainbow Warsnake is not broken. It's not even very good. You gave up the prospect of casting level-appropriate spells, and you made the domains you did get during level-up way worse because you gave up the delicious caster levels _holy word_ and _dictum_ require. Rainbow Servant is a semi-justifiable power now for power later tradeoff. If you nerf its casting by four levels, it becomes flatly terrible even on a Warmage.


As I mentioned originally, Rainbow Servant ends up casting at a higher level than Mystic Theurge in the long run under normal circumstances.  The caster levels lost to the prestige class can easily be made up for using Practiced Spellcaster, with one instance of the feat on Rainbow Servant will make up the loss of 4 caster levels.  Mystic Theurge costs two instances of the feat to ultimately end up casting at one level below your actual character level (barring Arcane Hierophant).  Both classes can be expected to end up being able to cast 8th level spells, and I'd argue that the warmage gaining the ability to _spontaneously cast nearly the entirety of the cleric spell list_ is a fair tradeoff for access to 9th level spells.  You gain nearly the full potential of a tier 1 class without the drawback of having to plan ahead to properly utilize it. If that level of spell accessibility and the versatility amounts to being "not very good," you might not be playing it to its full potential.

----------


## Wildstag

> The Text Trumps Table Rainbow servants should be wielding 1d43 Scorpion Whips (a Sandstorm item never getting errata and never reprinted, in spite of being an obvious typo.  Not text trumps table, more like "table obviously wrong but never fixed")


By your read, you'd allow a Vigilante to get 33 3rd-level spells per day? Because that is a LOT of Haste spells. Enough to make a Swiftblade blush. Heck, you could even go X5/Vigilante5/Swiftblade9/Y1 and get perpetual options in addition to 33 3rd-level spells per day! The table was never fixed (pdf on dmsguild still has the error). For 70,000 gp you could have 66 3rd-level spells per day!

----------


## Jervis

> By your read, you'd allow a Vigilante to get 33 3rd-level spells per day? Because that is a LOT of Haste spells. Enough to make a Swiftblade blush. Heck, you could even go X5/Vigilante5/Swiftblade9/Y1 and get perpetual options in addition to 33 3rd-level spells per day! The table was never fixed (pdf on dmsguild still has the error). For 70,000 gp you could have 66 3rd-level spells per day!


Saving this for if I play with a table trumps text GM.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

> The two classes aren't meant to do the same thing, though.  
> Mystic Theurge is a generic PrC that levels two separate classes' spellcasting progression at once as a way to efficiently progress a multiclass character.
> Rainbow Servant is a thematic, strictly single-caster class that adds a divine flair to an otherwise strictly arcane character.  It's not meant to be powerful, it's meant to add flavor to the game.


Of course they're meant to do the same thing. They're meant to make a character who has access to both cleric and arcane spells.
"Flavor" is not an argument for 6/10 progression. Being weak and useless isn't flavor. It'll still have the exact same flavor at 10/10 casting. 

Also if you're claiming to know the designers intent i'll have to ask for a source. *Particularly since in the case of RS other language books corrected the table, not the text.*



> Mystic Theurge will typically require wizard 3/cleric 3 to gain entry.  By the time you hit level 10 in Mystic Theurge at character level 16, you're casting at level 13 in each class.  After that you need to start leveling each class separately again, ending up with wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10 and casting at 15th level by 20.


Most games don't even get to level 15. You're also ignoring that the MT gets cleric spells at level 4 at the latest while the RS does so at level 15.
So most games you're not actually getting anything from RS except for some weak SLA's a few mediocre domains and a lot of lost casting. 




> Rainbow Servant only requires wizard 5.  After that, you're only casting as wizard 11/cleric 11 once you hit your PrC capstone at level 15.  At this point you are _technically_ behind Mystic Theurge due to missing 4 levels of progression, but this is one important aspect of Rainbow Servant's capstone: 
> Your ability to learn and cast cleric spells applies not only to your existing wizard levels, but also to all future levels of wizard progression.  Outside of the prestige class's 10 levels, *you only need to level a single base class to progress casting for both spell lists.*  Since you don't need to worry about leveling wizard and cleric separately as a multiclass character, the Rainbow Servant will have caught up and passed Mystic Theurge in terms of caster level, casting at 16th level by level 20.


The MT also gets all cleric spells by default. The RS has to find a divine source to scribe from for every single cleric spell he wants.

The MT also has more than twice the spell slots of the RS in addition to casting 7th level spells of both while the RS has only 6th level spells with one class worth of slots.

As for progression after level 15 you could just use Legacy champion and end up with 16/16 casting at level 20. Definitely not optimal, yet still superior to the 6/10 RS.
So the RS has 16th level wizard casting and can learn cleric spells.
The MT has 16th level wizard casting, 16th level cleric casting, knows all cleric spells, gets double the spell slots, can pick good domains, gets turn undead for DMM shenanigans and is reasonably playable before level 15.




> Since Mystic Theurge requires leveling wizard and cleric separately after maxing out the prestige class, your options along that route are much more limited as you will be restricted to two levels in a prestige class for each leg of your build.


See above, legacy champion works fine.




> Back to the highlights of Rainbow Servant's capstone:  The cleric spells, while divine, are considered to be part of your base class's spell list.  Since you are casting them as a wizard, they are based on intelligence.  *All of your spells are tied to a single ability score,* while Mystic Theurge is inherently MAD.
> In addition, since your cleric spells are tied to your wizard caster level, a single instance of Practiced Spellcaster will allow you to cast all of your spells at your character level.  The Mystic Theurge route, which would end with wiz 5/clr 5/mystic theurge 10, would require two instances of Practiced Spellcaster to cast all of your spells a level below your actual level.
> As far as spell resistance and saving throws go, *Rainbow Servant is more effective at penetrating an opponent's defenses when necessary*.


The Mystic Theurge can just buy CL boosters and get a better feat. There's a whole bunch of divine-only ones after all.
Or take Aligned Theurgy (which he qualifies for with any alignment domain) instead to boost his CL into the stratosphere.
With Mark of the Enlightened Soul (persisted) you now cast every cleric or wizard spell at your combined wizard and cleric CL instead of a mere CL 20.




> Finally:  The common Rainbow Servant cheese.  Mystic Theurges advance in two caster classes as if they were actually leveling normally in both classes simultaneously.  Rainbow Servants, on the other hand, learn and cast cleric spells* in the same way they learn and cast their base class's spells*.  This makes a small number of classes like the Warmage who, despite having a somewhat limited selection of spells available in their base class spell list, *automatically know and can spontaneously cast every spell that they have access to,* especially effective when paired with Rainbow Servant.  
> Even if you were to refute every other thing I've said, the existence of this single exploit gives Rainbow Servants the potential to become completely and absolutely broken in a way that immediately invalidates your claim that they are objectively worse in every way.


If you have a problem with Rainbow Warsnakes i'd suggest houseruling how that particular combo gains spells, not nerfing RS into unplayability. 
Because as i already mentioned, a MT without early entry isn't exactly high-op by any standard.




> Aspects in which Mystic Theurge is better:
> Spells per day
> Spells known (in most cases)
> More consistent character advancement1


Also domain choice, divine spell access, inherent turn undead and higher saves.

I also think you're really undervaluing having twice as many spells per day.




> Aspects in which Rainbow Servant is better:
> Single ability score determines maximum spell level you can cast for both spell lists


There is not a single MT who has trouble qualifying to cast his highest level spells. You're seriously reaching here.



> Single ability score determines all spells' saving throw DCs for both spell lists


True. The MT however can benefit quite a bit from Owl's Insight. The RS does not have that option.




> Single base class's spellcasting ability advances caster level for both spell lists


How is that an advantage when the MT still gets higher spell and caster level?




> Capstone ability grants a huge power boost to the character that makes a long-term investment in the class rewarding1


At 15th level the RS has nothing the MT doesn't have better. Finally catching up a bit after 10 levels of lagging behind is not rewarding. Or an advantage of any sort.

If anything i'd call it adding insult to injury. 
You've been a pale copy of the MT for 14 levels now, and now that you finally get to do what the MT has already been doing since level 5 - after you spend a few weeks and thousands of gp to scribe some divine spells of course - he still makes you look like a chump.




> Naturally results in a higher caster level in the long run


Except it doesn't, as i've explained above.




> Easier and less taxing to enhance spellcasting for both spell lists at once via feats, class features, and similar effects that would otherwise effect only a single class's spellcasting


Nope. Any casting enhancer that only works for arcane spells won't affect a RS's cleric spells because they're still divine, so they're in exactly the same boat. 
If you want me to buy that one you'll have to deliver examples, because i'm drawing a blank on single-class only caster boosters that aren't a PrC progressing base casting.




> More flexible options for character advancement


True, if you want your MT casting to stay equal. Or you could go for 9ths in a single class. The RS doesn't get that option, so i'd call it a wash.



> Opens a veritable floodgate for overpowered cheese


The only cheese RS enables over MT is spontaneous full-list casters. If you're not a Beguiler, Warmage or DN there is nothing RS offers that MT doesn't do better.




> 1 This is strictly a matter of opinion that can go either way, depending on personal preferences


It's mechanical features are demonstrably inferior in every way. That's about as clear cut as it gets.




> Rainbow Servant is objectively better in _almost every way_, even while losing 4 levels of progression.


It gets half the spells.
It can't choose its domains.
It has to learn every divine spell individually.
It gets absolutely nothing worthwhile until the capstone.

The only way it's better is being SAD, which really doesn't make up for the rest.

----------


## RandomPeasant

> Flavor and power _do_ trade off, quite frequently.  Simply saying that they don't is ignoring large chunks of published material.  Classes _very_ often trade out caster progression for class features.


No they don't. Some options are _less powerful_, but they are not _more flavorful_. A Rainbow Servant has different flavor than someone who is not a Rainbow Servant, not more of it. The idea that he has more is _precisely_ the Stormwind Fallacy.




> Also, that's not what the Oberoni Fallacy is.  The Oberoni Fallacy is suggesting that something is not a problem and then also offering rule 0 as a solution despite the fact that it is not a problem.


You are correct. I said Oberoni, I meant Stormwind.




> I'd argue that the warmage gaining the ability to _spontaneously cast nearly the entirety of the cleric spell list_ is a fair tradeoff for access to 9th level spells.


Is getting the Good domain a fair tradeoff for being a full spell level behind a Wizard? Is gaining the Good and Air domains a fair tradeoff for being a full spell level behind a normal Warmage? Is gaining the Good, Air, and Law domains a fair tradeoff for being _two_ full spell levels behind a Wizard? Because those are tradeoffs Rainbow Servant asks you to make too. It is absolutely true that the capstone of Rainbow Servant is very powerful for a Warmage. But unless you do the absolute maximal early entry cheese, you spend the overwhelming majority of the game _not_ getting that capstone but still paying some or most of the cost for it.

Like I said, I would completely support a change to the Rainbow Servant that smoothed the power it gets over all ten levels, even if that resulted in it being less powerful over all. But houseruling that table trumps text is the wrong way to do that, and does not result in a better-balanced class. It just results in an option that is never correct to take, instead of an option that is correct to take if you expect to spend long enough with the capstone to overcome the mediocrity of the levels before it. I think that kind of power now for power later deal is bad, but you cannot say that it is while defending prestige classes that lose caster levels, because that is the _exact_ thing they are doing.

----------


## ShurikVch

One more RAW-legal, but hilarious possibility: Kenku Wereraven...

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> One more RAW-legal, but hilarious possibility: Kenku Wereraven...


A were-murder-of-crows kenku has some really awesome flavor, irrespective of the fact that it does, in fact, taste like chicken.

----------


## RandomPeasant

I just occurred to me, but Mystic Theurge is really the wrong comparison for Wizard/Rainbow Servant. If you want to be a guy who casts off INT and scribes a really wide variety of spells into his book, just be an Archivist. You get your wide-open spell access from 1st level instead of 15th level. You get to take fifteen levels of PrCs instead of five. And you're casting all your spells as divine, so you can wear armor if you want (though it'd be wise to pick up some proficiencies before slapping on full plate or a shield). It's true that there are some Wizard spells that won't be accessible to you, at least not without a great deal of cheese, but I rather suspect that getting to learn Cleric, Druid, domain, divine Bard, Ranger, Paladin, and divine PrC spells from 1st level takes most of the sting of that off.

----------


## Darg

By RAW you are allowed to use single use touch spells on up to 6 friends as a full round action:




> You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action





> Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


As multi-target touch spells by RAW allow you to touch all targets (even beyond 6) as part of the casting and must be done in the same round as casting the spell, there is no core purpose to ever hold a charge to touch 6 friends unless single charge spells can be used that way. As the rules are permissive, logically it must mean that it's giving you permission to it.

----------


## Jervis

> I just occurred to me, but Mystic Theurge is really the wrong comparison for Wizard/Rainbow Servant. If you want to be a guy who casts off INT and scribes a really wide variety of spells into his book, just be an Archivist. You get your wide-open spell access from 1st level instead of 15th level. You get to take fifteen levels of PrCs instead of five. And you're casting all your spells as divine, so you can wear armor if you want (though it'd be wise to pick up some proficiencies before slapping on full plate or a shield). It's true that there are some Wizard spells that won't be accessible to you, at least not without a great deal of cheese, but I rather suspect that getting to learn Cleric, Druid, domain, divine Bard, Ranger, Paladin, and divine PrC spells from 1st level takes most of the sting of that off.


As the resident Shair chad I should mention the existence of Sky Pledged Shair and how you get the ENTIRE CLERIC AND DRUID SPELL LIST from core only. Its honestly a pretty good comparison for this.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

> As multi-target touch spells by RAW allow you to touch all targets (even beyond 6) as part of the casting and must be done in the same round as casting the spell, there is no core purpose to ever hold a charge to touch 6 friends unless single charge spells can be used that way. As the rules are permissive, logically it must mean that it's giving you permission to it.


You can't hold the charge on multi-target touch spells (RC p.126).



> Allies and Touch Spells: To use a touch spell on allies 
> during combat, you cast the spell and then touch those you 
> can reach. You can touch one friend as a standard action or 
> up to six friends as a full-round action. *If the spell allows 
> you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell, you cant 
> hold the charge (see below)*you must touch all targets 
> of the spell in the same turn that you finish casting the 
> spell. If the spell allows only one target, you can touch 
> that target during the same turn you cast the spell, or you 
> can hold the charge.


It's one part of how RC broke spells like Storm Touch or Chill Touch (the other was the rule on weaponlike spells that casting time overrides normal action cost for attacking).

----------


## Jervis

> You can't hold the charge on multi-target touch spells (RC p.126).
> 
> It's one part of how RC broke spells like Storm Touch or Chill Touch (the other was the rule on weaponlike spells that casting time overrides normal action cost for attacking).


Those spells are a mess. After RC they either become dysfunctional or broken to the 8th dimension and back in terms of power.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

> Those spells are a mess. After RC they either become dysfunctional or broken to the 8th dimension and back in terms of power.


There is actually a reading by which they still work:




> Target: Up to one creature/level touched


If you interpret that strictly you can only touch each target once no matter how high your CL.
With that ruling they become pretty balanced with other blasting spells, basically turning into point-blank AoE spells with range = reach that require a touch attack for every target.

----------


## Darg

> You can't hold the charge on multi-target touch spells (RC p.126).
> 
> It's one part of how RC broke spells like Storm Touch or Chill Touch (the other was the rule on weaponlike spells that casting time overrides normal action cost for attacking).


That's actually in the quote I provided. It was from the PHB pg 175 in the subsection of "Range." The rule is that you have to touch all targets before you end your turn and by extension holding the charge would have basically wasted the spell. The RC was likely a clarification rather than a change. I personally think spells like chill touch (storm touch has a different target line) can be single target or multi-target thanks to the "or" in the target line. That's just how I play it anyway.




> There is actually a reading by which they still work:
> 
> If you interpret that strictly you can only touch each target once no matter how high your CL.
> With that ruling they become pretty balanced with other blasting spells, basically turning into point-blank AoE spells with range = reach that require a touch attack for every target.


Another way to read those spells is that it isn't the spell itself giving you the attacks, unlike a spell like scorching ray (a ray spell, not touch spell), but actually the "touch spells in combat" rules that give you attacks. The spell charges your touch, and the rules give you attacks. The reasoning is that spells that give you attacks like scorching ray give you a permissive action, "you may fire one ray," while touch spells do not have an equivalent, "you may touch one target." At most it only describes what you can do with your touches. This may just be me justifying the way I want these spells to work with rules nuance.

----------


## Seward

> Another way to read those spells is that it isn't the spell itself giving you the attacks, unlike a spell like scorching ray (a ray spell, not touch spell), but actually the "touch spells in combat" rules that give you attacks. The spell charges your touch, and the rules give you attacks. The reasoning is that spells that give you attacks like scorching ray give you a permissive action, "you may fire one ray," while touch spells do not have an equivalent, "you may touch one target." At most it only describes what you can do with your touches. This may just be me justifying the way I want these spells to work with rules nuance.


Exactly.  That's how it has always been ruled at any table I played.

An attack spell like Chill touch gives you 1d6/attack with 1 attack/level.  If you want to use it 2x/round you need 2 attacks from somewhere (monk flurry, haste, iterative, something).  Most touch spells discharge on the first target so you can't do CLW on 6 buddies.

The text specifies "allies" which implies "harmless spells" not attacks, and provides rules for some future (or maybe existing) harmless spell where you could affect multiple targets but text doesn't explicitly say you can affect 1/level as part of casting in order to have a general default case for poorly written spells, or where you have a swift action spell where the effect is something like "your hand carries a positive energy charge that lasts for 1 round.  If you touch an ally it does 1d6 healing.  If you touch an undead you do 1d6 damage".

That allows iterative touch attacks (or unarmed strike attacks) doing 1d6 damage yes, but it also lets you "full attack" allies and touch 6 of them if they're in reach and not trying to avoid the touch.   If you want to heal more than 1d6 damage on a single target you have to make touch attack rolls (risking a "1") and are limited to your full attack sequence.

RC rules text is kind of stupid.  It looked to me like they were trying to fix an edge condition and made things worse.   When programming that sort of thing is why you regression test (bug fixes that introduce new bugs on previously working code are very common)

----------


## Darg

> Exactly.  That's how it has always been ruled at any table I played.
> 
> An attack spell like Chill touch gives you 1d6/attack with 1 attack/level.  If you want to use it 2x/round you need 2 attacks from somewhere (monk flurry, haste, iterative, something).  Most touch spells discharge on the first target so you can't do CLW on 6 buddies.
> 
> The text specifies "allies" which implies "harmless spells" not attacks, and provides rules for some future (or maybe existing) harmless spell where you could affect multiple targets but text doesn't explicitly say you can affect 1/level as part of casting in order to have a general default case for poorly written spells, or where you have a swift action spell where the effect is something like "your hand carries a positive energy charge that lasts for 1 round.  If you touch an ally it does 1d6 healing.  If you touch an undead you do 1d6 damage".
> 
> That allows iterative touch attacks (or unarmed strike attacks) doing 1d6 damage yes, but it also lets you "full attack" allies and touch 6 of them if they're in reach and not trying to avoid the touch.   If you want to heal more than 1d6 damage on a single target you have to make touch attack rolls (risking a "1") and are limited to your full attack sequence.
> 
> RC rules text is kind of stupid.  It looked to me like they were trying to fix an edge condition and made things worse.   When programming that sort of thing is why you regression test (bug fixes that introduce new bugs on previously working code are very common)


I think they were just trying to clarify that spells like scorching ray resolve when you cast the spell rather than you having to spend attacks to deliver them as attack roll spells.

----------


## ShurikVch

> A were-murder-of-crows kenku has some really awesome flavor, irrespective of the fact that it does, in fact, taste like chicken.


Explanation of the joke don't make it funnier, but I still explain: Kenku is kinda anthropomorphized ravens (or crows); Wereraven(/Werecrow) in hybrid form is anthropomorphized raven (or crow); in case of Kenku Wereraven(/Werecrow) - how can we even say if they're lycanthrope or not?
Some person on the Internet laughed about the "whole generations of Gnoll Werehyenas - and nobody is aware!.."; similar issues are with Lizardfolk Werelizards and Kenku Wereravens(/Werecrows)
Sidenote: WereLegendary Raven is possible too...

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Explanation of the joke don't make it funnier, but I still explain: Kenku is kinda anthropomorphized ravens (or crows); Wereraven(/Werecrow) in hybrid form is anthropomorphized raven (or crow); in case of Kenku Wereraven(/Werecrow) - how can we even say if they're lycanthrope or not?
> Some person on the Internet laughed about the "whole generations of Gnoll Werehyenas - and nobody is aware!.."; similar issues are with Lizardfolk Werelizards and Kenku Wereravens(/Werecrows)
> Sidenote: WereLegendary Raven is possible too...


Note that it's a were-_murder_-of-crows, which is a flying swarm. So you have a crow-man who turns into a flock of the things in "animal" form.

And it does taste like chicken, although eating a lycanthrope is probably not a good idea, because what's good for the goose kenku is good for the gander whatever-you-are.

----------


## noob

> Note that it's a were-_murder_-of-crows, which is a flying swarm. So you have a crow-man who turns into a flock of the things in "animal" form.
> 
> And it does taste like chicken, although eating a lycanthrope is probably not a good idea, because what's good for the goose kenku is good for the gander whatever-you-are.


Can you catch were murder of crowhatever by biting one?

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Can you catch were murder of crowhatever by biting one?


Maybe? Does it count as the hair of the dog murder of the birds that bit you if you bite first?

----------


## bekeleven

This one takes a short walk to get to.

First, spell/power lists are additive, rather than exclusive. This is how a book can say "Here are some cleric spells" without reprinting all of the _cure_ line. Basically, not mentioning a spell doesn't _remove_ it from the list. In fact, there are few ways to remove a spell from a list, the main ones being doing so explicitly in text, and reprinting the spell with a shorter list of classes.

Second: The Psion and Psychic Warrior were first printed in the Psionics Handbook, then reprinted in 3.5. These are, however, the same classes. The class tables of their later printings override the former.

This means that any powers on the 3.0 Psion list are accessible to a 3.5 Psion. What does that get us? Well, here's a silly one:

Unlike Sorcerers, who know set numbers of spells of each level, Psions can learn powers from any level under their maximum (which makes sense, since powers were designed to scale more gracefully).

"Talents," or 0-level powers, are the psionic equivalent of cantrips. They were not reprinted into 3.5. A psion can take them from level 1, since 0 is under their maximum power level, but it's not clear how to _use_ them since they don't have an associated power point cost.

...Except they do. We get this:




> Also called talents, 0-level powers have a special power point cost A psion can manifest any talent he knows for free a number of times per day equal to his level + 3. After exhausting his daily allotment, the psion must pay 1 power point per manifestation of a 0-level power for the rest of the day.


So RAW, I think a 3.5 Psion/Psywar can learn Talents and manifest them for free. There's a lot of wiggle room in this assertion, the main two being:

The fact that the above text is found in the 3.0 Psion class description, which may make it invalid if you rule that the class was replaced wholesale. However, it feels to me like using a class description to explain more general rules; it would be like saying "No 9th-level casters in this game" and then removing the Hexblade familiar because familiars are in the sorcerer block. Furthermore, it's not even in the "Powers" header, but a separate header labeled "0-level powers" that doesn't correspond to anything on the class table, and thus, arguably wasn't one of the things replaced (by table or by header category).The phrase "Daily Allotment" could be read ambiguously. Maybe 3.5 psions don't have one?

Now, are any of these worth learning? Even for free, most of them just give +1 to some minor thing. The best ones might be "Minor minor creation" (Trinket), "Lesser Swift Haste" (Burst), "Mage Hand" (Far hand), "Lesser Charm Person" (Telempathic Projection, yes I spelled that right), and of course, "Detect Magic" (Detect Psionics, but transparency exists).

I should also mention that the people writing the psionics handbook used some, to be generous, _ambiguous_ wording here. A later example in the text suggests that they intended total free talents/day to be 3+ class level, but when I read the above text, it sure reads to me like they get 3+CL free manifestations of _each_ talent.

----------


## Darg

> Three years of feedback, notes, observations, and new ideas could finally come to light in a completely expanded, revised, and updated version of the Psionics Handbook. The inclusion of races, more classes, more prestige classes, more feats, more powers, and so on was just as important as *revising the original classes, feats, and other elements.*


Sorry to say, but the classes themselves were revised.

As for the ambiguousness of the way WotC used the word "any," it can be found all over the place. You are intended to assume that it is definition number 2:




> 1.
> used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.
> "I don't have any choice"
> 
> 2.
> used to express a lack of restriction in selecting one of a specified class.
> "these constellations are visible at any hour of the night"


To clarify, the specified class is "talent he knows" and the psion isn't restricted in picking a particular talent for the purpose of "manifesting for free a number of times per day equal to his level + 3." If that didn't explain it well enough, then in the way of the layman "what benefits you most is out." It's a single pool you draw from for all talents you know.

But, yeah, RAW technically allows you to use the first definition and the only one at fault is WotC because it could have been written better.

----------


## tiercel

I dont know how much this is hilarious versus just sad, but:

_the elven learning disorder._

The youngest possible starting age for an Elf Fighter, RAW, is 116; comparatively, a Human Fighter can be 16.

And for that 100 extra years of life, the Elf gets. One less feat and one less skill point than the human.  (And slightly better senses, secret door detecting, and immunity to sleep, but its not clear how the hundred extra years of experience explains that vs naturally keener ElfSenses.)



Oh, but it gets sadder.

According to RotW (p.13),  Elf children grow almost as swiftly as human children to age 15 or so; a 10-year-old elf boy and a 10-year-old human boy are nearly the same size and have similar mental and emotional maturity. And reach full physical growth at around 25.

So an elf adventurer at PHB starting age has been an adult for at least, oh, 85 years, while the equivalent human has been an adult for possibly zero years.

And yet!   Not even another elf can tell at a glance whether an elf is 25, 50, or 100 years of age. A few minutes conversation quickly dispels the mystery, of course; elves gain experience, grace, emotional maturity, patience, and wisdom throughout these ageless decades.

Except that an elf literally doesnt gain experience during that time; nor grace (presumably that +2 Dex is in play by time an elf has reached adulthood); nor wisdom (no Wis modifier).



And its not just individual elves, but elven civilization!  RotW (p.5):  Few outsiders can appreciate the depth and richness of a culture thousands of years older than their own or the complexity of people who live for hundreds upon hundreds of years. 

Ill let 8-Bit Theaters Red Mage handle that one:  If you elves are so great, why is your technology on par with humans even though you had a nine thousand year head start?



I can only assume that the gushing fanboyism used to describe elves isnt actually serious adoration.  Reading between the lines of RAW, its *pity*.  Elves are being *humored*, and their art, culture, and magic is being praised in the same way that a three-year-olds crayon scribblings are pinned to a refrigerator.

Awww, isnt that CUTE?

----------


## Tzardok

My opinion about that is that elves lack drive and ambition, not smarts. They are complacent. That example elf fighter may have decided that he wants to be a fighter when he was 16, but he propably spent 90% of the next hundred years watching sunrises, frolicking or lying around without touching a sword.
In short, elves aren't stupid, just incredibly lazy.

----------


## bekeleven

> he propably spent 90% of the next hundred years watching sunrises, frolicking or lying around


This is *blatant* composing poetry, watching cherry blossoms, lounging about on pillows, and pondering the meaning of existence erasure.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I donÂt know how much this is hilarious versus just sad, but:
> 
> _the elven learning disorder._
> 
> The youngest possible starting age for an Elf Fighter, RAW, is 116; comparatively, a Human Fighter can beÂ 16.
> 
> And for that 100 extra years of life, the Elf getsÂ. One less feat and one less skill point than the human.  (And slightly better senses, secret door detecting, and immunity to sleep, but itÂs not clear how the hundred extra years of ÂexperienceÂ explains that vs Ânaturally keener ElfSensesÂ.Â)
> 
> ÂÂ
> ...


*Elven* learning disorder?
How about the *Human*'s learning disorder?
If Human Rogue (one of the "easier" classes) can start at 15+1d6, then Kobold Rogue - at 6+1d3, Varag Rogue - 8+1d3, and Killoren Rogue - 10+1d4
Grimlock Wizard(/Druid/Cleric/.../etc) - at 12+2d*4* (unlike Human with 15+2d*6*) - despite being blind the whole time!
Quickling (_Tome of Horrors_) is adult at 2 (and venerable - at 15)
Kuo-Toa are the weird ones: despite being adult at the age 10, they took 2d6 years for supposedly "easier" classes, 3d6 - for the most complicated (Wizard/etc); but the Human-like 1d6  for the "mid-difficult" (like Bard or Ranger)
Warforged are even stranger - they're "adult" from the get-go, and could become a Wizard(/Druid/Cleric/.../etc) in a mere 1d4 years, but the "mid-difficult" classes take for them Human-like 1d6, and  supposedly "easier" classes - 1d12 (*!*)

And the text in the _Races of the Wild_ is a shoddy retcon: originally, they really grew *that* slow. Vaarsuvius said about "20 years in diapers", their adopted children are 26 years old (and in kindergarten), and elven ghost mentioned breastfeeding for 17 years.
Moreover, it's a retcon of retcon: *Table 65: Aging Effects* don't allow for Elves to live over 750 years, while 2E _Player's Handbook_ says:



> Elves often live to be over 1,200 years old, although long before this time they feel compelled to depart the realms of men and mortals. Where they go is uncertain, but it is an undeniable urge of their race.


Yvonnel Baenre was *killed* at the age of *2043* (for crying out loud!)

----------


## noob

> *Elven* learning disorder?
> How about the *Human*'s learning disorder?
> If Human Rogue (one of the "easier" classes) can start at 15+1d6, then Kobold Rogue - at 6+1d3, Varag Rogue - 8+1d3, and Killoren Rogue - 10+1d4
> Grimlock Wizard(/Druid/Cleric/.../etc) - at 12+2d*4* (unlike Human with 15+2d*6*) - despite being blind the whole time!
> Quickling (_Tome of Horrors_) is adult at 2 (and venerable - at 15)
> Kuo-Toa are the weird ones: despite being adult at the age 10, they took 2d6 years for supposedly "easier" classes, 3d6 - for the most complicated (Wizard/etc); but the Human-like 1d6  for the "mid-difficult" (like Bard or Ranger)
> Warforged are even stranger - they're "adult" from the get-go, and could become a Wizard(/Druid/Cleric/.../etc) in a mere 1d4 years, but the "mid-difficult" classes take for them Human-like 1d6, and  supposedly "easier" classes - 1d12 (*!*)
> 
> And the text in the _Races of the Wild_ is a shoddy retcon: originally, they really grew *that* slow. Vaarsuvius said about "20 years in diapers", their adopted children are 26 years old (and in kindergarten), and elven ghost mentioned breastfeeding for 17 years.
> ...


Age lengthening magic is a common thing in dnd.

----------


## Metastachydium

> According to RotW (p.13),  Elf children grow almost as swiftly as human children to age 15 or so; a 10-year-old elf boy and a 10-year-old human boy are nearly the same size and have similar mental and emotional maturity. And reach full physical growth at around 25.
> 
> So an elf adventurer at PHB starting age has been an adult for at least, oh, 85 years, while the equivalent human has been an adult for possibly zero years.
> 
> And yet!   Not even another elf can tell at a glance whether an elf is 25, 50, or 100 years of age. A few minutes conversation quickly dispels the mystery, of course; elves gain experience, grace, emotional maturity, patience, and wisdom throughout these ageless decades.
> 
> Except that an elf literally doesnt gain experience during that time; nor grace (presumably that +2 Dex is in play by time an elf has reached adulthood); nor wisdom (no Wis modifier).


Oh, that one's simple enough! Clearly, this implies that by RAW, an elf younger than 50 has DEX -2, CON -2 and WIS -4 and an elf aged between 50 and 100 CON -2 and WIS -2 as its racial modifiers or somesuch. (Also, you're maliciously forgetting that during those 80 odd years, they learn how to wield _four_ entire martial weapons!)

----------


## Dimers

Not sure it rises to the level of "hilarious", but I just noticed that there are no special rules for UMDing artifacts.  With some way to guarantee a minimum result of 21+ for three weeks of constant use, you can UMD a _book of exalted deeds_, a _book of vile darkness_ and a _sutra of tranquil thought_ for +3 character levels and couple other perks.

----------


## ShurikVch

None of alternare class features in the _Drow of the Underdark_ have any prerequisites: you, by the RAW, don't need to be a Drow to take them

----------


## Tohron

Favorable Sacrifice from the Miniatures Handbook gives you spell resistance equal to your caster level + 10 for the next CL hours.  For 10,000 XP, you can Wish for a CL 2,500 scroll of Favorable Sacrifice.  You can then Shapechange into a Lilitu to automatically succeed on the UMD check to activate it (avoiding the need to hit UMD DC 2,520), and can bestow upon yourself or an individual you touch, a SR of 2,510 for the next 2,500 hours: just over 104 days.  Ample time to recoup the XP expenditure and then some.

----------


## RandomPeasant

I think "get really high spell resistance" is pretty low on the list of things I am worried about people doing with _wish_ for magic items.

----------


## Darg

> None of alternare class features in the _Drow of the Underdark_ have any prerequisites: you, by the RAW, don't need to be a Drow to take them


If we take this RAW to it's logical conclusion, Drow X class is a brand new separate base class. If we go with the syntax other books with ACFs go with, declare class and list features, we can see that Drow Fighter must be a different base class.

----------


## Inevitability

The open-endedness of urban druids getting animated object companions, and the fact that you can summon/dismiss them essentially at-will, is highlighted quite well by this bit of rules text:




> Any construct that serves an urban druid is spontaneously created by the 24-hour prayer that calls the urban companion; the urban druid need not have the Craft Construct feat (Monster Manual, page 303) or expend gold and experience points to gain the construct companion.


Even more hilariously, Urban Companion is extraordinary, meaning that RAW you can sit down in an antimagic field, pray for 24 hours, and summon a gargantuan-sized platinum statue of your exact specifications. At least with animals you can houserule that they just wander in from somewhere, this lets you conjure one-of-a-kind items if you feel like it.

----------


## Batcathat

> Even more hilariously, Urban Companion is extraordinary, meaning that RAW you can sit down in an antimagic field, pray for 24 hours, and summon a gargantuan-sized platinum statue of your exact specifications. At least with animals you can houserule that they just wanders in from somewhere, this lets you conjure one-of-a-kind items if you feel like it.


Now I imagine a golem just going about its business, only to suddenly make up an excuse and run off, Superman-style, because a druid at the other side of the planet needs a golem of its exact specifications.

----------


## ShurikVch

> If we take this RAW to it's logical conclusion, Drow X class is a brand new separate base class. If we go with the syntax other books with ACFs go with, declare class and list features, we can see that Drow Fighter must be a different base class.


 :Small Confused:  Why?
It's not a variant classes - it's ACFs
After all, you don't call your Barbarian "Spell Sense" or "View Spirit World" - if you take the corresponding ACFs

----------


## Jervis

> None of alternare class features in the _Drow of the Underdark_ have any prerequisites: you, by the RAW, don't need to be a Drow to take them


I think thats a feature not a bug, a lot of feats from that book just take a darkness SLA to qualify so Drow can use them but so can any warlock. That seems like a way to give use for the book in games other than items off, Drow only, final underdarkstination.

----------


## Darg

> Why?
> It's not a variant classes - it's ACFs
> After all, you don't call your Barbarian "Spell Sense" or "View Spirit World" - if you take the corresponding ACFs


The why is in the syntax. A druidic avenger cannot use the rage replacing ACFs of a barbarian because they are barbarian ACFs. As such, the ACF of a drow fighter is for a drow fighter only.




> Alternative class features replace class features found in the *original class description*.





> Alternative class features are ways to customize a class by selecting abilities that *best reflect a racial choice* and character concept.


Each of the ACFs in DotU are under Drow classes. If you believe that a dwarf can get hit-and-run tactics, one must also believe they can be a drow fighter. Otherwise it's just confirmation bias.

----------


## sleepyphoenixx

> I think thats a feature not a bug, a lot of feats from that book just take a darkness SLA to qualify so Drow can use them but so can any warlock. That seems like a way to give use for the book in games other than items off, Drow only, final underdarkstination.


It *is* a feature. The rules don't just not forbid it, they spell it right out:



> Alternative class features have no prerequisites; you simply select them at the 
> proper levels in lieu of selecting the standard class features.

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: thread re-opened.

----------


## ShurikVch

In the reply #290 I already said about the transformative templates which should be rather obvious - but in some cases are almost unnoticeable

Now I remembered some more of such (it's creepy, but still kinda funny):
Hivenest Monster template (_Dungeonscape_) should be kinda notable - presuming the templated creature have any chance to demonstrate it - but not in the case if the base swarm is flies and the base creature is Maggot Golem (_Dragon_ #339)
Worm that Walks transformation should be glaringly obvious (camouflage/disguises aside), right? Yes - unless the base creature was awakened Leechwalker (_Monster Manual II_) or Maggot Golem
And, if later such WtW would die and become a Favored Spawn or Scion of Kyuss - it's would be completely unnoticeable too - what's some more worms among those which were already there?..

----------


## Inevitability

> Channel Healing (Su): By expending one daily use of your ability to turn undead and channeling that energy toward a willing ally, you can cast any cure spell as a swift action, or you can cast a cure spell on a target up to 30 feet away. You can do both in the same round, but doing so expends two daily uses of your ability to turn undead.





> (a cure spell is any spell with "cure" in its name)


By RAW, since 'Secure Shelter' is a cure spell, first-level Solar Channelers can conjure 400 square foot houses as a swift action several times per day. The fact that it's not on any divine class spell list _might_ be a problem, but multiple domains grant it and Extra Spell exists.

----------


## redking

> By RAW, since 'Secure Shelter' is a cure spell, first-level Solar Channelers can conjure 400 square foot houses as a swift action several times per day. The fact that it's not on any divine class spell list _might_ be a problem, but multiple domains grant it and Extra Spell exists.


You mean because secure has -cure as a component in the word? If so, this is the logical endpoint for "RAW" fanaticism.

----------


## St Fan

> You mean because secure has -cure as a component in the word? If so, this is the logical endpoint for "RAW" fanaticism.


This is not RAW fanaticism, this is "cheating by pedantry".

----------


## bekeleven

It's any spell with cure in its name, not any spell with \ncure in its name.

----------


## Morphic tide

Okay, silly potential "there's no rule preventing the stacking" pileup:

You take Blood-Spiked Charger, which requires Power Attack and Weapon Focus in Spiked Shields and Spiked Armor. The relevant bit is that it allows you to make an attack with both a Spiked Shield and Spiked Armor with a bonus 2x Strength modifier to attack and damage, as an alteration to existing charges. Then you work towards Shield Slam for a save vs. Dazed, which has Improved Shield Bash to keep your shield AC after attacking with your shield and Shield Charge for a _Trip_ attempt without retaliation when you charge with a shield, because Spiked Shield attacks are still shield bashes. _Then_ you take _Valorous Charge_ to double to an overall 5x Strength modifier to damage, with its prerequisite Ride-By Attack letting you continue moving after unleashing this on an unfortunate soul. Finally, you get Crusader levels as you can fit for White Raven and Devoted Spirit charge Maneuvers, with the achievement of fitting 9ths with all these feats being rewarded with a +50 damage charge.

So in total, assuming a Heavy Spiked Shield, you get a 2d4+6xStr+100 attack with a DC 10+1/2 level+Str save vs. 1 round Daze _and_ a Trip-without-retaliation, and a 2d6+5xStr attack, if we're sane and assume War Master's Charge doesn't apply to both. Before any special qualities. The key is that there's no actual mechanic to demand leaving the saddle like Leap Attack's Jump check, so if you embrace RAW insanity it's significantly more justifiable than Lightning Kukri. And if you allow that level of shameless cheesemongering, you can replace the Armor Spikes in the charge with a Lance to apply the bonus Charge to for a 3d6+9xStr+150 damage, _in addition_ to a 2d4+6xStr attack with the aforementioned double-CC rider.

Feel free to rip me to shreds about how it really _cannot_ stack this fully, or how completely stupid "there's no Jump check, so 'you throw yourself into the air, transforming yourself into a deadly, spiked projectile.' is toothless fluff!" is. Still a core for a non-trivial shield ubercharge, even if you need to get turned into a Centaur to do it for real and it's well below the usual Leap Attack Pounce setup.

----------


## Darg

> Okay, silly potential "there's no rule preventing the stacking" pileup:
> 
> You take Blood-Spiked Charger, which requires Power Attack and Weapon Focus in Spiked Shields and Spiked Armor. The relevant bit is that it allows you to make an attack with both a Spiked Shield and Spiked Armor with a bonus 2x Strength modifier to attack and damage, as an alteration to existing charges. Then you work towards Shield Slam for a save vs. Dazed, which has Improved Shield Bash to keep your shield AC after attacking with your shield and Shield Charge for a _Trip_ attempt without retaliation when you charge with a shield, because Spiked Shield attacks are still shield bashes. _Then_ you take _Valorous Charge_ to double to an overall 5x Strength modifier to damage, with its prerequisite Ride-By Attack letting you continue moving after unleashing this on an unfortunate soul. Finally, you get Crusader levels as you can fit for White Raven and Devoted Spirit charge Maneuvers, with the achievement of fitting 9ths with all these feats being rewarded with a +50 damage charge.
> 
> So in total, assuming a Heavy Spiked Shield, you get a 2d4+6xStr+100 attack with a DC 10+1/2 level+Str save vs. 1 round Daze _and_ a Trip-without-retaliation, and a 2d6+5xStr attack, if we're sane and assume War Master's Charge doesn't apply to both. Before any special qualities. The key is that there's no actual mechanic to demand leaving the saddle like Leap Attack's Jump check, so if you embrace RAW insanity it's significantly more justifiable than Lightning Kukri. And if you allow that level of shameless cheesemongering, you can replace the Armor Spikes in the charge with a Lance to apply the bonus Charge to for a 3d6+9xStr+150 damage, _in addition_ to a 2d4+6xStr attack with the aforementioned double-CC rider.
> 
> Feel free to rip me to shreds about how it really _cannot_ stack this fully, or how completely stupid "there's no Jump check, so 'you throw yourself into the air, transforming yourself into a deadly, spiked projectile.' is toothless fluff!" is. Still a core for a non-trivial shield ubercharge, even if you need to get turned into a Centaur to do it for real and it's well below the usual Leap Attack Pounce setup.


Dragon disciple for +16 str, driving attack for a bull rush that uses your total bonus to damage and bypass the normal size limitation, dragonblooded qualifies for the dragon wings -> improved dragon wings feat for a 2x multiplier for a flying charge attack with any piercing weapon, and finally aptitude weapon to use the feat with any aptitude weapon.

----------


## Tohron

The Wish spell lets you wish for magic items, with the limitation of adding double the XP needed to craft the item normally to the cost of the Wish spell.  However, it doesn't add any cost regarding details of how the item was crafted, such as them having Enhance Item, which lets them use their spellcasting ability modifier for determining crafted-item spell DCs.  So, if you Wish for an item of on-command Suggestion crafted by someone with Enhance Item and 1000 INT, you can now use DC 507 Suggestions on-demand.

----------


## Jervis

> By RAW, since 'Secure Shelter' is a cure spell, first-level Solar Channelers can conjure 400 square foot houses as a swift action several times per day. The fact that it's not on any divine class spell list _might_ be a problem, but multiple domains grant it and Extra Spell exists.


I really love this sort of raw abuse. Completely raw legal but obviously absurd that said I would actually allow this just because its funny. Also as an aside divine bard can cast this meaning Archivists can also grab it

----------


## InvisibleBison

> By RAW, since 'Secure Shelter' is a cure spell, first-level Solar Channelers can conjure 400 square foot houses as a swift action several times per day. The fact that it's not on any divine class spell list _might_ be a problem, but multiple domains grant it and Extra Spell exists.


The rule defining cure spells is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as you're doing here, to mean that any spell with the letters C U R and E in that order in its name is a cure spell, or it can be interpreted to mean any spell with the word "cure" in its name is a cure spell. Why is the first interpretation RAW and the second not?

----------


## Inevitability

> The rule defining cure spells is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as you're doing here, to mean that any spell with the letters C U R and E in that order in its name is a cure spell, or it can be interpreted to mean any spell with the word "cure" in its name is a cure spell. Why is the first interpretation RAW and the second not?


Imagine someone asked "Does Aidan have 'a' in his name?" which is the exact same wording we're talking about.

Nobody would respond with "He does not, because his name does not contain the indefinite article 'a' as an entirely separate word."

Similarly, the definition of cure spells does not mention words anywhere, so to claim that they are relevant seems odd.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Imagine someone asked "Does Aidan have 'a' in his name?" which is the exact same wording we're talking about.
> 
> Nobody would respond with "He does not, because his name does not contain the indefinite article 'a' as an entirely separate word."
> 
> Similarly, the definition of cure spells does not mention words anywhere, so to claim that they are relevant seems odd.


This is just an explanation of why the first interpretation is valid, not an explanation of why it is the only valid interpretation.

----------


## ShurikVch

Pony: 2d8+2 (11 hp), 40' speed, AC 13, 2 hooves -3 melee (1d3) as full attack; CR ¼
Deer (_Silver Marches_): 2d8-2 (7 hp), 60' speed, AC 14, gore +1 (1d4) and 2 hooves +1 (1d2) as full attack; CR 1/6
Deer is less dangerous than a pony? Really?!
(I mean: sure, average deer isn't aggressive - but the same is with average pony...)

----------


## ciopo

A literal read of the swiftblade 3rd level feature, sudden casting.

It's an (ex) ability that says "you can cast haste as a free action once per round".

This can be interpreted to not use your spell slots at all

----------


## Darg

> Similarly, the definition of cure spells does not mention words anywhere, so to claim that they are relevant seems odd.





> cure spell: Any spell with the *word* cure in its name, such as cure minor wound, cure light wounds, or mass cure critical wounds.


It definitely says word. What it does not say is "sequence of letters."




> Spell Chains: Some spells reference other spells that they are based upon. (For instance, cure light wounds is the spell upon which *all other cure spells are based*


Just thought I should point this one out too.

----------


## Thurbane

Just noticed that the Spinning Halberd feat lets you do an additional attack with the halberd that does 1d6 damage, + 1/2 Str mod.

This is entirely unrelated to the size of the halberd involved - doesn't matter if it's the tiny halberd of a jermlaine, or the colossal halberd of an elder titan...it's still 1d6 base.

At the least the Haft Strike feat has the good sense to say the damage is as a club of the appropriate size...

----------


## Darg

> Just noticed that the Spinning Halberd feat lets you do an additional attack with the halberd that does 1d6 damage, + 1/2 Str mod.
> 
> This is entirely unrelated to the size of the halberd involved - doesn't matter if it's the tiny halberd of a jermlaine, or the colossal halberd of an elder titan...it's still 1d6 base.
> 
> At the least the Haft Strike feat has the good sense to say the damage is as a club of the appropriate size...


I think Haft Strike is even less clear. It says you  can attack with the haft. It's worded as an additional attack but is implied that it's a special form of TWF. It could be an extra attack, or it could be TWF. The feat doesn't tell you one way or the other, but it implies both.

----------


## ShurikVch

It's a dysfunction, but still: it's hilarious how often writers forgot necessity of "(object)" for spells to work how they're supposed to.
For example: _Blast of Force_ allow "Fortitude partial" save; since it's not "Fortitude partial (object)" - it means any Undead (or, for that matter, non-Living Construct) would be completely immune to it - regardless of how small or/and weak they are
Or _Hammer of Righteousness_ (_Book of Exalted Deeds_):



> A great warhammer of positive energy springs into existence, launches toward a target that you can see within the range of the spell, and strikes unerringly. The hammer of righteousness deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level to the target, or 1d8 points of damage per caster level if the target is evil.
> ...
> The hammer is considered a force effect and has no miss chance when striking an incorporeal target.


 Unfortunately, save is still "Fortitude partial" - thus, Evil Undead would be immune completely...

----------


## Tohron

I'm not the first person to notice that Energy Transformation Field is absurdly broken, but I find it particularly funny how one of the most abusive exploits involves the spell the description uses as an example: Summon Monster.  To summarize the spell, it's a permanent AoE that absorbs spells and SLAs cast inside it and uses them to repeatedly cast a linked spell automatically (the linked spell cannot have expensive material or XP components).  If it's linked to Summon Monster IX, then cast 9 Magic Missiles and it will conjure up a new Coatl (compare Versatile Spellcaster, where one level 9 spell is worth 256 level 1 spells, or magic item & spellcasting service costs, where one CL 17 9th level spell is worth 153 CL 1 1st level spells).

And well... many Summon Monster options have SLAs...   At Summon Monster VI, the same level as Energy Transformation Field, an Equinal Guardinal has Dispel Magic at-will, so it will fuel the summoning of another Guardinal in 2 rounds, and fuel the summoning of 5.5 Guardinals over its entire duration.  And each new Guardinal can keep supplying yet more SLAs to the Energy Transformation Field.  Needless to say, this gets out of hand fast, and the AoE is a 40 foot radius, so it can support a lot of summoning.

----------


## Venger

If you have any ranks in craft (alchemy) you can't make holy water or everburning torches. 




> Any of these substances except for the everburning torch and holy water can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> If you have any ranks in craft (alchemy) you can't make holy water or everburning torches.


You can't make any of the other things, either...

...unless you're a spellcaster.

Because apparently mixing chemicals can only be done if you're magical.

I'd hate to see what attempts at cooking and baking would be for, say, a housewife, or a chef. Because apparently you can't bake a cake or a souffle (which involve chemical reactions similar to those that occur with the creation of explosive gases, acids, and burning liquids) unless You're A Wizard, Harry!

----------


## Inevitability

Savage Species has an infamous table in the back where it lists the stats for various 'anthropomorphic animals', created by applying a template to all the monster manual's animals.

Compared to anthropomorphic large sharks, anthro medium sharks are the same size (both get set to medium), have worse strength, dexterity, and constitution as well as worse natural armor, but for some reason they get slapped with +1 LA whereas the formerly-large one gets +0. The only meaningful reason you'd want to play a medium one is if you needed ranger instead of rogue as your favored class, but as far as I'm concerned rogue is more splashable anyway. It's a strong contender for 'most unnecessary level adjustment in D&D', just because an identical-but-better race is literally on the next line.

----------


## Darg

> It's a dysfunction, but still: it's hilarious how often writers forgot necessity of "(object)" for spells to work how they're supposed to.
> For example: _Blast of Force_ allow "Fortitude partial" save; since it's not "Fortitude partial (object)" - it means any Undead (or, for that matter, non-Living Construct) would be completely immune to it - regardless of how small or/and weak they are
> Or _Hammer of Righteousness_ (_Book of Exalted Deeds_):
>  Unfortunately, save is still "Fortitude partial" - thus, Evil Undead would be immune completely...


Those spells don't violate any rule and don't need the "(object)" part in the saving throw line because they don't have a target line that specifies what it can hit. Because the spell doesn't say you can't target objects and there is no reason it can't affect objects, you can target and affect objects.




> Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save *unless the effect works on objects* or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creatures description says it cannot run).

----------


## ShurikVch

> Those spells don't violate any rule and don't need the "(object)" part in the saving throw line because they don't have a target line that specifies what it can hit. Because the spell doesn't say you can't target objects and there is no reason it can't affect objects, you can target and affect objects.


I never said they violated anything (otherwise I would post it in the Dysfunctional Rules)
It's just funny: it easily able to push aside some tiny critter (presuming damage wouldn't kill it outright) - but Effigy or Zombie version of said critter would be completely immovable - despite their Str (even with the template) likely not even up to 10; heck, even common objects are immune too - you can't broke a glass with it...
And BoED stuff is all about "fighting Evil" - but lack of "(object)" tag makes one of more widespread kind of evil critters (on average - it depends on the adventure, obviously) immune completely just by being itself

----------


## Darg

> I never said they violated anything (otherwise I would post it in the Dysfunctional Rules)
> It's just funny: it easily able to push aside some tiny critter (presuming damage wouldn't kill it outright) - but Effigy or Zombie version of said critter would be completely immovable - despite their Str (even with the template) likely not even up to 10; heck, even common objects are immune too - you can't broke a glass with it...
> And BoED stuff is all about "fighting Evil" - but lack of "(object)" tag makes one of more widespread kind of evil critters (on average - it depends on the adventure, obviously) immune completely just by being itself


The spells you mentioned can target and affect objects so undead aren't immune to them. It doesn't need an "(object)" tag because there is no differentiating factor between targets. Take Fireball for example, it doesn't have the "(object)" tag but can explicitly affect objects. The usual case for the tag to be included is for when the spell affects objects exclusively or mechanically differently from other types of targets.

----------


## Darg

> Savage Species has an infamous table in the back where it lists the stats for various 'anthropomorphic animals', created by applying a template to all the monster manual's animals.
> 
> Compared to anthropomorphic large sharks, anthro medium sharks are the same size (both get set to medium), have worse strength, dexterity, and constitution as well as worse natural armor, but for some reason they get slapped with +1 LA whereas the formerly-large one gets +0. The only meaningful reason you'd want to play a medium one is if you needed ranger instead of rogue as your favored class, but as far as I'm concerned rogue is more splashable anyway. It's a strong contender for 'most unnecessary level adjustment in D&D', just because an identical-but-better race is literally on the next line.


I think you've read the table wrong. Mine is saying the Med size gets +1 LA, +2 str, +4 Dex, +2 Con, +3 NArmor, and favored class ranger. Large Size gets +0 LA, -2 Str, +6 Dex, -2 Con, +4 NA, and favored class rogue. Honestly it feels like they got the templates swapped. Though, if you follow the table the Huge size has 3HD and +1 LA but it says it starts at ECL 3.

Edit: it just occurred to me that you might have been mixing up all 3. Huge size has worse stat bonuses at +2 Str, +2 Dex, +0 Con, and +5 NA than the medium, but supposedly has 3 HD and +1 LA and is actually large sized. That ECL needs adjudication however. Might be worth going with the ECL and reducing the HD by one or removing the LA.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The spells you mentioned can target and affect objects







> It doesn't need an "(object)" tag because there is no differentiating factor between targets.


Really? Saving Throw:



> *(object)*
> The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creatures saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic items saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the items caster level.





> Take Fireball for example, it doesn't have the "(object)" tag but can explicitly affect objects.


It's a dysfunction which I already mentioned in the previous thread: huge part of spells shouldn't work on objects - because they're lacking the tag
But _Blast of Force_ and _Hammer of Righteousness_ are even worse there, because of their "*Saving Throw:* Fortitude partial"
Undead Type:



> Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).


Construct Type:



> Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).


_Fireball_, at the very least, usually don't allow a Fortitude save




> The usual case for the tag to be included is for when the spell affects objects exclusively or mechanically differently from other types of targets.


Really?
Dimension Door
Feather Fall
Invisibility
Mages Disjunction
Magic Mouth
Neutralize Poison
Nondetection
Sculpt Sound
Silence
All of them have the "(object)" tag. Now, do they "_affects objects exclusively or mechanically differently from other types of targets_"? In what way? (And this are just examples from the Core...)

----------


## Darg

> Really? Saving Throw:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dysfunction which I already mentioned in the previous thread: huge part of spells shouldn't work on objects - because they're lacking the tag
> But _Blast of Force_ and _Hammer of Righteousness_ are even worse there, because of their "*Saving Throw:* Fortitude partial"
> Undead Type:
> 
> Construct Type:
> ...


Where's your citation that a spell can only affect objects when it has the tag? You've made the original assumption. I haven't seen a rule that prevents a spell from targeting objects unless it has the object tag in the saving throw line.

Dimension door has different rules for objects: weight limit and doesn't require willingness
Feather Fall: If used on a falling object it does half damage
Invisibility: Items put into an invisible chest don't disappear from sight
Mage's Disjunction: permanent magic items become normal items
Neutralize Poison: objects don't gain immunity from poisons from the spell.
Nondetection: Objects don't have gear
Sculpt Sound: an object is not a spellcaster.
Silence: Unattended objects don't save

I'd say it is the usual case.

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

> Where's your citation that a spell can only affect objects when it has the tag? You've made the original assumption. I haven't seen a rule that prevents a spell from targeting objects unless it has the object tag in the saving throw line.


Undead are explicitly immune to effects that require a Fort save unless they affect objects or are harmless. It's in the type. But only Fort saves.

----------


## Darg

> Undead are explicitly immune to effects that require a Fort save unless they affect objects or are harmless. It's in the type. But only Fort saves.


Yes, this is known. However it doesn't answer the pending question: "where in the rules does it say that a spell can't affect an object unless it has the "(object)" tag? The target line and the description can limit the types of targets that can be affected by the spell. However, when a spell doesn't specify a type of target? What prevents the spell from targeting objects? Unless there is a rule that says you cannot affect objects with the spell unless it has the "(object)" tag, they work as described in the description.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Where's your citation that a spell can only affect objects when it has the tag? You've made the original assumption. I haven't seen a rule that prevents a spell from targeting objects unless it has the object tag in the saving throw line.


OK, one more time - Saving Throw:



> *(object)*
> The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creatures saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic items saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the items caster level.


"_The spell can be cast on objects_" - ergo, the spell without the "(object)" can't.
(Otherwise - what's even a point of this tag?)




> Dimension door has different rules for objects: weight limit and doesn't require willingness


OK, your point - I accept it




> Feather Fall: If used on a falling object it does half damage


Revive the old arguments about "are falling creatures causing damage"?




> Invisibility: Items put into an invisible chest don't disappear from sight


Prove it  :Small Amused: 




> Mage's Disjunction: permanent magic items become normal items


And permanent magical creatures - wouldn't?




> Neutralize Poison: objects don't gain immunity from poisons from the spell.


Objects have poison immunity to begin with - giving them another one is redundant




> Nondetection: Objects don't have gear


OK, maybe, maybe...




> Sculpt Sound: an object is not a spellcaster.


Creature can be not a spellcaster too. Your point?




> Silence: Unattended objects don't save


Which is a common case for all spells which affect objects - unless the object is magical ("_magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance_")

I see you don't found any arguments against _Magic Mouth_.

In addition:
Telekinetic Sphere
Undetectable Alignment

----------


## Khedrac

> "_The spell can be cast on objects_" - ergo, the spell without the "(object)" can't.
> (Otherwise - what's even a point of this tag?)


Almost _non sequitur_.

Just because a spell cannot be cast on objects does not mean it cannot affect objects - the classic example is _fireball_ which can destroy weak walls and unattended items (and attended items on a natural one save by the wearer).  How do we know this? Because there are a lot of rules discussing said effects on attended and unattended items.

What a spell without the [object] tag (usually) cannot be is targetted on an object - hence no casting _magic missile_ at a rope.
Any area-effect spell starts with the default assumption that it affects all objects in the area - there are some that don't on careful reading (e.g. affects all enemies in area = not objects = not undead if fortitude save) but the default assumption is that the spell's affect is applied to everything in the area with line-of-effect to the spell's targetted point.

Ray spells can be aimed at an object because the effect is the ray and rays can be aimed at anything within range - but again check the spell's description to see if it will actually do anything on a hit (e.g. _ennervation_ on a vase = no).

----------


## ShurikVch

> What a spell without the [object] tag (usually) cannot be is targetted on an object - hence no casting _magic missile_ at a rope.
> Any area-effect spell starts with the default assumption that it affects all objects in the area - there are some that don't on careful reading (e.g. affects all enemies in area = not objects = not undead if fortitude save) but the default assumption is that the spell's affect is applied to everything in the area with line-of-effect to the spell's targetted point.


In that case - why some area spells have "object" tag too - if, as you say, them affecting everything is "_the default assumption_"?
I mean: Mages Disjunction, Shout - see the tag?




> Ray spells can be aimed at an object because the effect is the ray and rays can be aimed at anything within range - but again check the spell's description to see if it will actually do anything on a hit (e.g. _ennervation_ on a vase = no).


Then why ray spells include the "object" tag?
Dimensional Anchor, Disintegrate...

----------


## Khedrac

> In that case - why some area spells have "object" tag too - if, as you say, them affecting everything is "_the default assumption_"?
> I mean: Mages Disjunction, Shout - see the tag?
> 
> Then why ray spells include the "object" tag?
> Dimensional Anchor, Disintegrate...


The answer appears to be that that the spell references objects in its description, usually but not always having a different effect on objects or special rules pertaining to them.
Again the counter example is _fireball_ where the description explicitly states that it can damage intervening barriers (and melt coins etc.) but does not explicitly references 'objects' and thus lacks the tag.

Probably the best answer to "why" is "a subtle editing mistake that no-one caught".

----------


## ShurikVch

> The answer appears to be that that the spell references objects in its description, usually but not always having a different effect on objects or special rules pertaining to them.
> Again the counter example is _fireball_ where the description explicitly states that it can damage intervening barriers (and melt coins etc.) but does not explicitly references 'objects' and thus lacks the tag.


The fact _Fireball_ describes it don't mean much.
For comparison: _Affliction_ (_Book of Exalted Deeds_), _Bone Chill_* (_Frostburn_), _Deadly Sunstroke_ (_Complete Mage_), _Devastate Undead_* (_Lords of Darkness_), _Dust to Dust_ (_Races of the Wild_), _Incorporeal Nova_ (_Spell Compendium_), _Rejuvenating Light_ (_Complete Champion_), _Rigor Mortis_ (_Heroes of Horror_), and _Shadowblast_ (_Spell Compendium_) are all describe how they affect Undead (spells marked with * are even Undead-only) - but, unfortunately, Undead are immune to all of them (mostly Fort saves without the "object" tag, but _Incorporeal Nova_ is a [Death] effect - to which Undead are immune too)
Thus, lack of the "object" tag in the _Fireball_, sadly  :Small Frown: , puts "_melt coins_" into the "irrelevant fluff text" area and "house rules" territory...




> Probably the best answer to "why" is "a subtle editing mistake that no-one caught".


If only this "_subtle editing mistake_" wasn't so widespread...
(From the aforementioned spells, _Bone Chill_ and _Dust to Dust_ are both rays)

----------


## Darg

> If only this "_subtle editing mistake_" wasn't so widespread...
> (From the aforementioned spells, _Bone Chill_ and _Dust to Dust_ are both rays)


If only there were a rule that says spells can't target or affect objects unless it has the (object) tag. Sadly, there is no rule that comes close to that. At best you have a description of a tag that tells you what it is not that it does anything.

----------


## ShurikVch

> If only there were a rule that says spells can't target or affect objects unless it has the (object) tag. Sadly, there is no rule that comes close to that. At best you have a description of a tag that tells you what it is not that it does anything.


At your table.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Darg

> At your table.


You keep saying that, but you have no actual rule to back up your claims.

----------


## ShurikVch

> You keep saying that, but you have no actual rule to back up your claims.


I cited this rule twice - with highlights for your convenience - but you keeping insisting the RAW don't says which it clearly says
I bet at your table you can petrify Undead - after all, the only thing which prevented it was the Fort save without the "(object)" tag...

----------


## ciopo

Well, there happens to be (object), in spell description rules, that is defined as "this spell can be cast on objects" . It happens to be found in the saving throw line of a spells, rather than target.

It feels fair to me to agree that when you have a game term defined as "this spell can be cast on objects", stuff lacking that term probably can't be cast on objects?

The reading that "can be cast on object" doesn't imply/equate "can affect objects" seems a bit overly permissive, to me.

A simple example: orb of acid. Rather clearly, you can thriw an orb of acid to a door if you want to try to destroy a door. Also rather clearly, a door doesn't need to make a fortitude save to not be sickened, since that portion of the spell only applies to creatures.

But, by your logic, since orb of acid can be used on objects to destroy them, undead aren't immune to the sickened effect?

I know you will say that orb of acid specify only creatures need to try to make a save.... but that's the whole point of having that "object" rule to differentiate between an orb of acid amd a disintegrate, no?

I find it somewhat likely that whoever designed hammer of righteousness forgot that undead are immune to spells with fortitude saves, honestly. Thus it's hikarious RAW, to me. 
And promptly houseruled/getting a ruling that yes, you can hammer of righteousness undeads, because D'UH!

Another absurd example, going by that "it doesn't have a target line". Cloudkill doesn't have a target line, so it ... affect objects? Therefore while living creatures have to save, undeads are not actually immune to having to do that fortitude save, I guess they are too stupid to realize they are already dead, and so they automaticalky fails cloudkill fortitude save, just like unattended objects would!

Cloudkill, after all, doesn't say it doesn't affect objects

(I'm being facetious but blue text is a chore to make on mobile devices)

----------


## Darg

> I cited this rule twice - with highlights for your convenience - but you keeping insisting the RAW don't says which it clearly says
> I bet at your table you can petrify Undead - after all, the only thing which prevented it was the Fort save without the "(object)" tag...


Depending on the spell, possibly. Flesh to stone wouldn't work because by RAW you can't affect objects because you can't target objects with the spell. "Can be" =/= "must have this tag." That's just silly to think so. How many saving throw and spell resistance: no spells are you preventing from working properly just because you can't understand this?




> Well, there happens to be (object), in spell description rules, that is defined as "this spell can be cast on objects" . It happens to be found in the saving throw line of a spells, rather than target.
> 
> It feels fair to me to agree that when you have a game term defined as "this spell can be cast on objects", stuff lacking that term probably can't be cast on objects?
> 
> The reading that "can be cast on object" doesn't imply/equate "can affect objects" seems a bit overly permissive, to me.


I don't think so, nor do the rules.




> A simple example: orb of acid. Rather clearly, you can thriw an orb of acid to a door if you want to try to destroy a door. Also rather clearly, a door doesn't need to make a fortitude save to not be sickened, since that portion of the spell only applies to creatures.
> 
> But, by your logic, since orb of acid can be used on objects to destroy them, undead aren't immune to the sickened effect?
> 
> I know you will say that orb of acid specify only creatures need to try to make a save.... but that's the whole point of having that "object" rule to differentiate between an orb of acid amd a disintegrate, no?


No, the point of the "(object)" tag is to point out that objects receive a saving throw. On the same note, acid spash and acid arrow don't have the tag. Are they not allowed to affect objects just because they don't allow saves or spell resistance?




> I find it somewhat likely that whoever designed hammer of righteousness forgot that undead are immune to spells with fortitude saves, honestly. Thus it's hikarious RAW, to me. 
> And promptly houseruled/getting a ruling that yes, you can hammer of righteousness undeads, because D'UH!
> 
> Another absurd example, going by that "it doesn't have a target line". Cloudkill doesn't have a target line, so it ... affect objects? Therefore while living creatures have to save, undeads are not actually immune to having to do that fortitude save, I guess they are too stupid to realize they are already dead, and so they automaticalky fails cloudkill fortitude save, just like unattended objects would!
> 
> Cloudkill, after all, doesn't say it doesn't affect objects
> 
> (I'm being facetious but blue text is a chore to make on mobile devices)


Cloud kill specifically only targets living creatures. Why would it affect objects when living and creature are both requirements?

Saying that that the "(object)" tag is a requirement to affect objects is extremely silly and breaks the game. It's not in the rules, nor is it intended.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Depending on the spell, possibly. Flesh to stone wouldn't work because by RAW you can't affect objects because you can't target objects with the spell. "Can be" =/= "must have this tag." That's just silly to think so.


Does it mean _Rigor Mortis_ still wouldn't work on Undead? (It have "*Target:* Creature touched" and "*Saving Throw:* Fortitude negates")

And how about the _Blistering Radiance_ (_Spell Compendium_), _Despoil_ (_Fiendish Codex I_), and _Ectoplasmic Decay_ (_Ghostwalk_)?
I mean - their respective descriptions say they can affect both creatures and objects, but:
_Blistering Radiance_ - "*Saving Throw:* None and Fortitude partial; see text"
_Despoil_ - "*Saving Throw:* Fortitude partial (plants) or Fortitude negates (other living creatures)"
_Ectoplasmic Decay_ - "*Saving Throw:* Fortitude half"

Also - Clouting magical weapon (_Complete Arcane_) - targe which you hit with it must make Fort save or be driven back 10'. Unattended non-magical objects don't allowed to make saves - does it mean you can move multiton rocks with it - 10' per swing?




> How many saving throw and spell resistance: no spells are you preventing from working properly just because you can't understand this?


For SR - none at all: AFAIK, there are no rule which required for SR to have the "object" tag (or even explanation what this tag, exactly, does there)
But for saving throws - many many spells...




> No, the point of the "(object)" tag is to point out that objects receive a saving throw.


_Augment Object_ (_Stronghold Builder's Guidebook_)_Blacklight_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Blade Thirst_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Divine Interdiction_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Easy Climb_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Mighty Wallop_ (_Races of the Dragon_)_Minor Servitor_ (_Savage Species_)_Miser's Envy_ (_Draconomicon_)_Perinarch_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Perinarch, Planar_ (_Spell Compendium_)_Shadow Canopy_ (_Races of Faerûn_)_Silence__Soulbleed_ (_Magic of Incarnum_)_Spell Phylactery_ (_Magic of Faerûn_)_Spell Snare_ (_Magic of Eberron_)_Spell Snare, Greater_ (_Magic of Eberron_)_Suspended Silence_ (_Spell Compendium_)All of those spells have "*Saving Throw:* None (object)"
*Which* saving throw objects receive from them?




> On the same note, acid spash and acid arrow don't have the tag. Are they not allowed to affect objects just because they don't allow saves or spell resistance?


By the RAW - yes (not because of SR, but because of Saving Throws)




> Saying that that the "(object)" tag is a requirement to affect objects is extremely silly and breaks the game.


"How much it make sense - or breaks the game" is not a measuring stick of RAW (because - hey, we have nine whole threads about RAW which doesn't works really well)




> It's not in the rules, nor is it intended.


Voluntary RAW blindness don't make it go away, and speaking about what is and isn't intended is a houseruling (which is, by itself, perfectly fine - just isn't RAW)

----------


## MaxiDuRaritry

The artificer infusion Item Alteration changes the bonus type that an item grants, with only a few restrictions. It can change a headband of intellect to a Dodge bonus -- and multiple Dodge bonuses stack, meaning multiple similar items stack (limited by body slots, of course).




> Advanced mental gymnastics

----------


## Darg

> For SR - none at all: AFAIK, there are no rule which required for SR to have the "object" tag (or even explanation what this tag, exactly, does there)
> But for saving throws - many many spells...


You should read a little further under spell descriptions then:




> The terms object and harmless mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throw





> Voluntary RAW blindness don't make it go away, and speaking about what is and isn't intended is a houseruling (which is, by itself, perfectly fine - just isn't RAW)


Nah, if it doesn't agree with you, it MUST be houseruling. Which is fine. I can let you live a delusion.

----------


## ShurikVch

> You should read a little further under spell descriptions then:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The terms object and harmless mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throw


Well, firstly - in the all the game I don't know a single object which actually *have* SR - rather than *grants* it to its wearer/user
But even this moment aside - this text is horribly uninformative: if you actually cast spell with "*Spell Resistance:* Yes (object)" - then what, exactly, supposed to happen?
I tempted to post it in the Dysfunctional Rules thread - as a sheer "WTF?" 




> Nah, if it doesn't agree with you, it MUST be houseruling. Which is fine. I can let you live a delusion.


I quoted you the rule which explains how things work - but you insisting they work in completely different ways (even shifting your explanation along the way). Who of us deluded?

----------


## Darg

> Well, firstly - in the all the game I don't know a single object which actually *have* SR - rather than *grants* it to its wearer/user
> But even this moment aside - this text is horribly uninformative: if you actually cast spell with "*Spell Resistance:* Yes (object)" - then what, exactly, supposed to happen?
> I tempted to post it in the Dysfunctional Rules thread - as a sheer "WTF?" 
> 
> 
> I quoted you the rule which explains how things work - but you insisting they work in completely different ways (even shifting your explanation along the way). Who of us deluded?


It tells you that the object tag is the same for spell resistance as it for saving throws. It makes 0 sense to you because you believe that the text is a rule despite it not making declarative statements about how the text is meant to be used to adjudicate anything. 

It also requires ignoring that specific trumps general. If a spell specifically says it can affect a certain type of target, it can. Even in the worst of offenses for your case, spells still work as they should.

----------


## ShurikVch

> It tells you that the object tag is the same for spell resistance as it for saving throws.


No - I really don't understand it: so, spell with "*Spell Resistance*: Yes (object)" was actually cast on an object - and then...
What, exactly, supposed to happen? And how it's different from spells with "*Spell Resistance*: Yes" - without the "(object)" tag?
Let alone the fact - there are some spells with "*Spell Resistance*: No (object)" - like _Mighty Wallop_, _Spell Snare_, or _Suspended Silence_; how you explain it?

----------


## Darg

> No - I really don't understand it: so, spell with "*Spell Resistance*: Yes (object)" was actually cast on an object - and then...
> What, exactly, supposed to happen? And how it's different from spells with "*Spell Resistance*: Yes" - without the "(object)" tag?
> Let alone the fact - there are some spells with "*Spell Resistance*: No (object)" - like _Mighty Wallop_, _Spell Snare_, or _Suspended Silence_; how you explain it?


I think the "assumption" is that attended items would use the attendee's spell resistance, but that isn't explained. There is also the unique case of a monk's UAS acting as a manufactured weapon for spells, meaning that the monk's spell resistance can get in the way of applying magic weapon. The usual case is that the object tag is used when the spell specifically targets objects or works differently on objects. Fireball can't specifically target objects and doesn't affect objects differently. Orb of Acid can target anything and only creatures need to save against the secondary effect. Disintegrate on the other hand targets creatures or objects exclusively (can't target magical effects) and has a different effect on objects (if it fails it disintegrates without needing to take damage to 0 hp).

----------


## ShurikVch

Multiheaded Creature template (_Savage Species_):



> "Multiheaded" is an inherited template that can be added to any corporeal creature that has a discernible head (hereafter referred to as the base creature).


Now, what's the smallest creature in the game we can, probably, use it on? (Excluding the extreme cases like Alter Size or _Return to Nature_ abuse)
Mouse? No.
The smallest (and, probably, strangest) creatures for this template are Animated Coins.
See: Coins are corporeal, and have discernible heads (and tails  :Small Wink: )
Sure, because Coins are no bigger than Medium size, they allowed only one additional head, but still - how the heck Two-Headed Coin should look like?
Also, if "Cryo Creatures" variant would be used for our supposed Two-Headed Animated Coins, then we would get some cryocurrency...

----------


## Wildstag

A multi-headed coin would have three faces, two that are heads, and one that is tails, duh...

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> A multi-headed coin would have three faces, two that are heads, and one that is tails, duh...


It's always weird when a creature has more faces than it has heads.

----------


## Inevitability

> It's always weird when a creature has more faces than it has heads.




Like this?

----------


## ShurikVch

Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...

----------


## Darg

> Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...


If that trips you up, you should see black holes and atoms.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...


I blame 3.5 normalization. The Tarrasque still misses her 40x40, and the ridiculously gigantic Leviathan and Cloud Ray from MM2 miss their 200x50ft and 100x60ft. At least the latter now has more than 5ft reach. That's absolutely ridiculous for such a beast to not be able to strike at least 3 meters away from its body, but hey, that's 3.0 weirdness and I absolutely adore it (not that I miss the pre-revision edition in the slightest, 3.5 is way easier and feels way better to play).

----------


## Promethean

Flying weapons have hit dice and are valid targets of awaken construct.

Awakened flying weapons are 1 HD construct with an intelligence modifier >=3, so they're able to take class levels.

Awakened Flying weapons are still weapons with an enhancement bonus and everything, so they're both valid target to be used As weapon grafts and valid targets to Receive weapon grafts.

I heard you like Swords...

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Flying weapons have hit dice and are valid targets of awaken construct.


Awaken construct can only affect humanoid-shaped constructs.

----------


## Promethean

> Awaken construct can only affect humanoid-shaped constructs.


Make a humanoid-shaped sword, or make it a morphic weapon.

There's not exactly any rules on how your weapon needs to be Shaped to count as it's weapon type.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Make a humanoid-shaped sword, or make it a morphic weapon.
> 
> There's not exactly any rules on how your weapon needs to be Shaped to count as it's weapon type.


Yes, there is. It's the bit where it's called a sword. A small statue of a person is not a sword.

----------


## noob

> Yes, there is. It's the bit where it's called a sword. A small statue of a person is not a sword.


Make the handle look like an human (the guard of the sword is the arms and the pommel to prevent sliding while holding is shaped like feet) and the blade seemingly be the hair of that human, it is definitively still a sword (there is a lot of precedents for overly decorated sword handles) but it is now humanoid shaped.
Just make some effort in designing the sword and it can be fully functional while humanoid shaped (it would just be shaped like a twisted humanoid with an hair blade).

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Make the handle look like an human (the guard of the sword is the arms and the pommel to prevent sliding while holding is shaped like feet) and the blade seemingly be the hair of that human, it is definitively still a sword (there is a lot of precedents for overly decorated sword handles) but it is now humanoid shaped.
> Just make some effort in designing the sword and it can be fully functional while humanoid shaped (it would just be shaped like a twisted humanoid with an hair blade).


It turns out people have actually made hilts meant to look like people (admittedly, on a different model than you suggest), and they are not humanoid. They're clearly quite stylized. And while a different artisan could make objects that were more humanoid, that would impede its ability to function as a sword. I don't think there's a way to square this circle.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Make a humanoid-shaped sword


Like this?  :Small Amused: 
*Spoiler*
Show




On a tad more serious note, Flying weapon special ability was published in _Oriental Adventures_ later than in _Magic of Faerûn_ - thus, can, technically, take priority. And OA version - unlike the MoF - don't have the "Animated Object" clause

Sure, you can use _Minor Servitor_ spell on the sword to make it animated - but still, Weapon Graft must be "_grafted onto the hand of a thrall_", thus - target creature would still need a hand...

----------


## Thurbane

Anthropoid hilts weren't entirely uncommon, but not sure that would qualify the whole weapon as being humanoid-shaped.

----------


## Tzardok

If I wanted to be puerile, I would mention a sword's phallic shape and how you could take that more seriously than usual. But I won't; I am a pure spirit who wouldn't even think about such stuff.  :Small Amused:

----------


## loky1109

> Anthropoid hilts weren't entirely uncommon, but not sure that would qualify the whole weapon as being humanoid-shaped.


Why not? Yes, it's humanoid with some oversized body part, maybe hair, maybe... some other part, but I don't see why it isn't humanoid-shaped. Too big... hm... hair? Well, make not a sword, but a dagger.

----------


## noob

> Why not? Yes, it's humanoid with some oversized body part, maybe hair, maybe... some other part, but I don't see why it isn't humanoid-shaped. Too big... hm... hair? Well, make not a sword, but a dagger.


No matter how long the hair is, it is still an humanoid.
Hence my suggestion to basically have a T posing human with a blade hair as a sword.

----------


## InvisibleBison

Humanoid doesn't mean "recognizably depicting a human", it means "having human characteristics or form; resembling human beings." Even if we would accept that an anthropomorphic hilt is humanoid, the sword as a whole is not - humans don't have giant sword blades sticking out of any part of their body. A sword does not resemble a human or have a human form, no matter what its hilt looks like.

----------


## noob

> Humanoid doesn't mean "recognizably depicting a human", it means "having human characteristics or form; resembling human beings." Even if we would accept that an anthropomorphic hilt is humanoid, the sword as a whole is not - humans don't have giant sword blades sticking out of any part of their body. A sword does not resemble a human or have a human form, no matter what its hilt looks like.


However there is humans with 5 meter long hair in real life and by dnd standards, hair is part of the individual



> and some piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like)


(ref: the simulacrum spell)
Since hair is part of the humanoid creature, there is a non ambiguous interpretation of raw that allows to have an entire sword be humanoid like.
Regardless everything you are saying is not in the right context for the discussion because we are using the awaken construct spell which does not require the target to have the humanoid type and is clearly intended to work on creatures that are not humanoid but are depictions of humanoid such as golems which generally have nonsensical body proportions (just look at their pictures) and are generally made of metals (look at their descriptions).

Awaken construct



> This spell awakens a humanoid-shaped construct to humanlike sentience.


Humanoid shaped, so since an human can have the same shape as a specific sword with the right haircut you can use that spell on that specific sword.
Unless you are going to tell me that such haircut makes you stop being an humanoid in which case people at your table can become immune to hold person through the power of hair styling.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> However there is humans with 5 meter long hair in real life and by dnd standards, hair is part of the individual
> 
> (ref: the simulacrum spell)
> Since hair is part of the humanoid creature, there is a non ambiguous interpretation of raw that allows to have an entire sword be humanoid like.
> Regardless everything you are saying is not in the right context for the discussion because we are using the awaken construct spell which does not require the target to have the humanoid type and is clearly intended to work on creatures that are not humanoid but are depictions of humanoid such as golems which generally have nonsensical body proportions (just look at their pictures) and are generally made of metals (look at their descriptions).
> 
> Awaken construct
> 
> Humanoid shaped, so since an human can have the same shape as a specific sword with the right haircut you can use that spell on that specific sword.
> Unless you are going to tell me that such haircut makes you stop being an humanoid in which case people at your table can become immune to hold person through the power of hair styling.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

----------


## Promethean

> Like this? 
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a tad more serious note, Flying weapon special ability was published in _Oriental Adventures_ later than in _Magic of Faerûn_ - thus, can, technically, take priority. And OA version - unlike the MoF - don't have the "Animated Object" clause
> 
> Sure, you can use _Minor Servitor_ spell on the sword to make it animated - but still, Weapon Graft must be "_grafted onto the hand of a thrall_", thus - *target creature would still need a hand...*



We're making humanoid swords already(or any other weapon), may as well give them hands.





> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.


Why on earth would you go for the ruling that's less fun?

Especially once you realize you can acheive the same effect with the item familiar feat and each flying item familiar constuct would be eligable to take item familiar to make more constructs to place inside themselves.

----------


## Tohron

So, to give a specific example, would this qualify as a "humanoid sword"?


It has a "head" area (eyes could be added to the bottom of the blade, if necessary), along with two arms and two legs.  It can also be held and used as a sword.

And as a bonus visualization of what the weapon graft combo might look like:
*Spoiler*
Show

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Why on earth would you go for the ruling that's less fun?


This thread isn't about interpreting the rules in a way that is fun, it's about interpreting the rules in a way as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible. That's why it's called "Hilarious things you've found in RAW?" and not "Hilarious houserules you've made?".

----------


## Promethean

> This thread isn't about interpreting the rules in a way that is fun, it's about interpreting the rules in a way as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible. That's why it's called "Hilarious things you've found in RAW?" and not "Hilarious houserules you've made?".


But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.

By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.

----------


## Metastachydium

> But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.
> 
> By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.


For the record, 


> A humanoid *usually* has two arms, two legs, and one head, *or* a humanlike torso, arms, and a head.


Emphases mine. If we go by official definitions, certain bits (such as legs) are entirely unneccessary, and proportions don't really matter. Case in point, phaerlocks (four-eyed dromaeasaurids with weird, long fingers) and crucians (hunched creatures with many-jointed, two-toed legs and a massive hemispherical shell) are humanoids. Why exactly a creature with a single, rigid leg, a short humanoid torso, two short arms and a head couldn't be a humanoid or considered humanoid-shaped is beyond me.

----------


## Telok

Sooo... double weapons.... if the flying enhancement makes the weapon a construct and you enchant both ends of a double weapon is it a double construct? Should you add the hit dice? Because a double weapon is still a single weapon, you just enchant the two ends separately, and the enchant makes the whole weapon a construct.

On the 'humanoid" thing: I could see forging a double trident, one peice of steel five feet long, two tines on one end and three on the other. Make the tines long-ish and at the correct angles, you could get a sort of mutant stick figure person shape off it.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.
> 
> By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.


Yes, when the rules are ambiguous they require interpretation, and yes, I interpreted the rules in my earlier posts. I never denied any of that, but you seem to think that I'm contradicting myself somehow. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

----------


## Promethean

> For the record, 
> 
> Emphases mine. If we go by official definitions, certain bits (such as legs) are entirely unneccessary, and proportions don't really matter. Case in point, phaerlocks (four-eyed dromaeasaurids with weird, long fingers) and crucians (hunched creatures with many-jointed, two-toed legs and a massive hemispherical shell) are humanoids. Why exactly a creature with a single, rigid leg, a short humanoid torso, two short arms and a head couldn't be a humanoid or considered humanoid-shaped is beyond me.


So RAW is 100% on board with humoid swords? Cool.




> Sooo... double weapons.... if the flying enhancement makes the weapon a construct and you enchant both ends of a double weapon is it a double construct? Should you add the hit dice? Because a double weapon is still a single weapon, you just enchant the two ends separately, and the enchant makes the whole weapon a construct.
> 
> On the 'humanoid" thing: I could see forging a double trident, one peice of steel five feet long, two tines on one end and three on the other. Make the tines long-ish and at the correct angles, you could get a sort of mutant stick figure person shape off it.


My money is that they'd be 2 separate constructs connected by a shared peice, like conjoined twins.




> Yes, when the rules are ambiguous they require interpretation, and yes, I interpreted the rules in my earlier posts. I never denied any of that, but you seem to think that I'm contradicting myself somehow. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.


Because it does contradict your point.

The raw is vague enough about a specific mechanic that a valid interpretation interpretation results in hilarious scenarios.

You derided that idea as somhow not RAW by presenting your own interpretations and deriding the others on the basis that yours was the only valid way to interpret the RAW as "close to the literal meaning of the text as possible", which multiple people have disagreed with. You can't in your earlier posts say yours is the only valid interpretation and then in another that all interpretations of RAW are houserules removed from the RAW. It defeats the entire point of all your arguments until now.

All of this is pretty moot now though.

----------


## redking

I might as well throw this in here since it is supposedly RAW according to an expert on RAW.

Summary: The Merchant Prince PrC gets a 10% discount on magical item crafting for each level, reaching 50% at 5th level, so long as your magical item crafting takes place in the context of running a business.

----------


## sreservoir

I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.

----------


## Promethean

> I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.


I find Locate City Nuke to be hilarious as well. I imagine many people find several of the famous builds that use content from multiple books funny as well.

I'd hardly call using a +1 enhancement, a spell, and a feat or a +1 enhancement and 2 feats to get a funny outcome "stretching" anything in comparison.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> I'd hardly call using a +1 enhancement, a spell, and a feat or a +1 enhancement and 2 feats to get a funny outcome "stretching" anything in comparison.


The stretch isn't what you're using, but how you're using it.

----------


## Promethean

> The stretch isn't what you're using, but how you're using it.


Could you please explain where the "stretch" is?

I don't see it.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Could you please explain where the "stretch" is?
> 
> I don't see it.


The stretch is when you claim that an object that vaguely resembles a human is humanoid. It's not inarguably incorrect, like if you tried to describe a cube as being spherical, but no one who wasn't trying to find a reason why this combo should work would say it's the best or most fitting way to interpret the rules.

----------


## Morphic tide

> The stretch is when you claim that an object that vaguely resembles a human is humanoid. It's not inarguably incorrect, like if you tried to describe a cube as being spherical, but no one who wasn't trying to find a reason why this combo should work would say it's the best or most fitting way to interpret the rules.


In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. _Those_ are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having _literally nothing_ to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. _Those_ are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having _literally nothing_ to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.


And if those are the benchmark, then this is clearly not humanoid, which is what I've been saying all along.

----------


## Promethean

> And if those are the benchmark, then this is clearly not humanoid, which is what I've been saying all along.


Technically it wouldn't qualify by RAW as the SRD definition of humanoid is:




> A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head.


So your picture without legs or a humanoid torso can't fit the bill.

Other options in this thread Would, like so:




> So, to give a specific example, would this qualify as a "humanoid sword"?
> 
> 
> It has a "head" area (eyes could be added to the bottom of the blade, if necessary), along with two arms and two legs.  It can also be held and used as a sword.
> 
> And as a bonus visualization of what the weapon graft combo might look like:
> *Spoiler*
> Show

----------


## Thurbane

> I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.


I'm inclined to agree.

I mean for the "rule of cool" I might allow it in a game I was DMing, but it feels to me like jumping though hoops to make things interact, rather than something that is innately funny by RAW,

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Technically it wouldn't qualify by RAW as the SRD definition of humanoid is:
> 
> 
> 
> So your picture without legs or a humanoid torso can't fit the bill.


Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for _awaken construct_.

----------


## Promethean

> Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for _awaken construct_.


Except it can.

You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify. That's like saying all humanoids must be evil because you have one example of an evil humanoid.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Except it can.
> 
> You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify. That's like saying all humanoids must be evil because you have one example of an evil humanoid.


Okay, it's clear that you and I fundamentally disagree about what the rules are and how they should be interpreted, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

----------


## loky1109

> Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for _awaken construct_.


Sorry. What is "humanoid form" in this case? I always thought "humanoid form" and "look like a human[oid]" are synonyms. If something that "looks like a humanoid" doesn't have "humanoid form", what has?




> You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify.


I don't agree even this sword/dagger doesn't qualify. It has enough humanoid form in my book.

----------


## Tzardok

> In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. _Those_ are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having _literally nothing_ to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.


Sign of a badly written spell: it can't affect what it was meant to (in this case golems).

----------


## Inevitability

> In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. _Those_ are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having _literally nothing_ to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.


You can suppress Magic Immunity with the right spell in many cases, not?

----------


## noob

> Sign of a badly written spell: it can't affect what it was meant to (in this case golems).


You can cast the spell on stone golems since you can make them drop magic immunity with stone to flesh.
Just get another guy to cast stone to flesh on the last round.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Sorry. What is "humanoid form" in this case? I always thought "humanoid form" and "look like a human[oid]" are synonyms. If something that "looks like a humanoid" doesn't have "humanoid form", what has?


A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid. It's perfectly possible for something to look like a humanoid without having a humanoid form. Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.

----------


## Promethean

> A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid. It's perfectly possible for something to look like a humanoid without having a humanoid form. Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.


If your definition of humanoid form is separate from "looking humanoid" and we've established the SRD definition of humanoids is "two arms, two legs, and a head *OR* two arms, a humanoid torso, and a head", then what was your disagreement before?

Multiple people were pointing out that you could give a humanoid form to a sword rather easily, but you seemed to disagree.

----------


## loky1109

> A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid.


For me this has the same shape as the shape of humanoid. And it isn't best option that could be made.




> Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.


It doesn't.
But I agree, for example picture of a humanoid looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form. Your example doesn't work, but your general idea looks workable.

But I can't agree with the stance that sword can't have humanoid shape. Anything can. Sword, axe, chair, house, castle, flower, anything.

----------


## Darg

I think there is a difference from the mind seeing a pattern and interpreting it as having human features, vs actually having facsimiles of those features.. Just Google "human face hill" or "human face mountain" and look at all of pictures that "appear" to have human features but actually do not.

I don't think the sword picture would work because it is still shaped like a sword. That is where you should draw the line. It's not that something appears to be more than one thing, it's that it can easily identified as something it is shaped as. A human shaped statue with a sword hand is easily identified as a human shaped statue with a sword for a hand. A sword with forks coming out can hardly be called humanoid shaped. To do so, one would have to identify a blade as a head, the handle as a torso, and forks as arms and legs.

----------


## Promethean

I mean, this is all moot anyway.

There are other ways to give items an intelligence score such as the item familiar feat, legacy abilities, the wish spell, and just straight up forking over the cash to enhance an item with intelligence using the crafting rules.

----------


## loky1109

Even if I agree with you about swords... Well, there are numbers of weapons. For example humanoid shaped mace, why not?
Example: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/39/24/c...-indonesia.jpg
It isn't photorealistic, yes, but I see no obstacles to make photorealistic human-mace in the similar manner.

----------


## Darg

> Even if I agree with you about swords... Well, there are numbers of weapons. For example humanoid shaped mace, why not?
> Example: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/39/24/c...-indonesia.jpg
> It isn't photorealistic, yes, but I see no obstacles to make photorealistic human-mace in the similar manner.


That isn't shaped like a human, it's shaped to resemble a human. The two are completely different in concept. Humanoid as a prerequisite provides much greater flexibility, but it must still have arms, head, and torso. The mace shown functionally has only one conceptually. And were the arms to be crafted outward to create actual arms, could it realistically be called a functional weapon instead of a decorative piece made to resemble a weapon? A functional weapon is designed to be durable. Making such weak points on purpose to better resemble a humanoid makes it hard to argue that the function is to be a weapon. Improvised weapons cover the catch-all weapons category. What should really be asked, is a table used as a club a club or a table? What would you have to do to make the table a club instead of an improvised club?

----------


## Metastachydium

> But I can't agree with the stance that sword can't have humanoid shape. Anything can. Sword, axe, chair, house, castle, flower, anything.


You're goddamn right!




> I think there is a difference from the mind seeing a pattern and interpreting it as having human features, vs actually having facsimiles of those features.. Just Google "human face hill" or "human face mountain" and look at all of pictures that "appear" to have human features but actually do not.
> 
> I don't think the sword picture would work because it is still shaped like a sword. That is where you should draw the line. It's not that something appears to be more than one thing, it's that it can easily identified as something it is shaped as. A human shaped statue with a sword hand is easily identified as a human shaped statue with a sword for a hand. A sword with forks coming out can hardly be called humanoid shaped. To do so, one would have to identify a blade as a head, the handle as a torso, and forks as arms and legs.


You're confusing _human_ (the real life species) with _Humanoid_ (a creature type with a specific sort of body plan in D&D). Like I said, a Phaerlock is really just a Dromaeasaurid with four eyes and long, weird, clawed fingers. It's also a Humanoid, shaped like a humanoid. A creature that looks like a sword with a thick ricasso (torso), adjustable crossguards (arms) a narrow, short hilt (neck) and a pommel shaped like a bear's head (head) fits the definition of Humanoid provided by the rules, regardless whether you can also recognize it as sword-shaped.

----------


## Darg

> You're goddamn right!
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing _human_ (the real life species) with _Humanoid_ (a creature type with a specific sort of body plan in D&D). Like I said, a Phaerlock is really just a Dromaeasaurid with four eyes and long, weird, clawed fingers. It's also a Humanoid, shaped like a humanoid. A creature that looks like a sword with a thick ricasso (torso), adjustable crossguards (arms) a narrow, short hilt (neck) and a pommel shaped like a bear's head (head) fits the definition of Humanoid provided by the rules, regardless whether you can also recognize it as sword-shaped.


The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.

----------


## Promethean

> The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.


Have you seen the art for D&D weapons, or even fantasy weapons in general? Whether or not a weapon would be practical in real life has *Absolutely Zero* bearing on if it's an effective fantasy weapon. Functional weapons can see the door, we're in fantasy land now boy.

Joking aside, you literally just have to stick a torso with arms and a head on the pommel of whatever weapon and it would count easily under the SRD definition of humanoid. The appendages don't even need to be mobile without magical assistance, golems sure aren't.

Edit: Also, why is everyone so obsessed with the Awaken construct spell. It's entirely tangential to the function of the "I put weapons in your weapons" build that started all this. There are So many ways to make unintelligent construct into INT 3+ constructs that arguing about this is literally pointless.

----------


## Telok

> . I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.


Well now that's an interesting question. Take a humanoid robot. Right shape, moves around, waves arms, turns head. Start building thinner and thinner ones until it's the same thickness as a cardboard cut out. Is is still humanoid? Two arms, two legs, head, walks, waves, just happens to be the thickness of the cardboard cut out. Humanoid?

Take a skeleton of a person, like a doctor's office display one. Humanoid? Make it out of a single piece of metal instead of bones, now it's immobile, still humanoid? Put in hinges instead of being solid, humanoid? Flatten the metal "bones" until they're sword sharp on the edges, humanoid? Remove the hinges so it's a single piece of metal, just thin and sharp all over, humanoid?

Where does it start? Where does it stop? I can't tell.

----------


## Metastachydium

> The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.


But we're not talking about cardboard cuts. The pommel's head-shaped, all 3D. The crossguard is shaped like arms, all 3D. The ricasso is thick. The only flat thing is the blade itself, but it doesn't matter. We have arms, a head and a torso  and that's all the rules require.

How your human brain works is equally irrelevant. Golems are routinely treated as humanoid-shaped, but if you look at the art of, say, the iron golem (one of the two that have official art in the _MM_), it's really an incomplete, dysfunctional set of armour with a disproportionately small helmet, comically overlarge pauldrons and elephantine leg pieces and a stupidly narrow chestpiece with steel bars behind it. That's nothing like a human. A Phaerlock (Humanoid!) or Crucian (Humanoid!) is nothing like a human either, albeit they are at least organic. Your gut-based definition is so unneccessarily narrow that it's ultimately all but useless.

----------


## loky1109

> The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point.


Nothing are not a torso, not arms, not a head except a torso, arms, and a head, so this spell just doesn't work because constructs don't have all this parts, only parts that looks like.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

I'm breaking my own rule by saying this, but y'all need to learn to end pointless conversations. It's a stalemate. There will be no winners here. You've only proven that neither side can convince the other. Time to just walk away.

----------


## ShurikVch

Note: the _Proper State_ spell:



> Because only humanoids can become ghosts, this spell works only on incorporeal undead that are vaguely humanoid.
> For example, it cannot convert a spectral steed (a horselike undead), a nightwing nightshade (a batlike creature), a nightwalker nightshade (a giantlike creature), or a nightcrawler (a wormlike creature) into a ghost.


Apparently, writer thinks Nightshades are incorporeal, but this aside...
If this is not a humanoid - then "sword is humanoid" would be really hard to sell

----------


## Thurbane

> I'm breaking my own rule by saying this, but y'all need to learn to end pointless conversations. It's a stalemate. There will be no winners here. You've only proven that neither side can convince the other. Time to just walk away.


Agreed - I think we have well and truly hit the point where we just have to acknowledge two different schools of thought on the topic, and move on.

----------


## Telok

> I'm breaking my own rule by saying this, but y'all need to learn to end pointless conversations. It's a stalemate. There will be no winners here. You've only proven that neither side can convince the other. Time to just walk away.


Actually I really am curious what is and isn't humanoid to people. The rules, spells, whatevers, don't matter. I'm just curious what counts as a humanoid shape to people.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

> Actually I really am curious what is and isn't humanoid to people. The rules, spells, whatevers, don't matter. I'm just curious what counts as a humanoid shape to people.


Cool. Go make your own thread about that if you want.

----------


## noob

> Note: the _Proper State_ spell:
> 
> Apparently, writer thinks Nightshades are incorporeal, but this aside...
> If this is not a humanoid - then "sword is humanoid" would be really hard to sell


As you noticed they said "giantlike creature" this means that the reason it is not humanoid is that it is a giant(giants are similar to humanoids in shape but bigger).
Giants are one of the rare kinds of creatures that are directly mentioned as humanoid-shaped:



> A giant is a humanoid-shaped creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size.


Not that it matters to proper state because it ask for "vaguely humanoid" and not "humanoid shaped"

----------


## mashlagoo1982

I could see a modified version of Fi from Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword qualifying as humanoid and still being used as a sword.

----------


## sreservoir

Buoyant Lifting (SpC 40) is a 1st-level druid spell with a parenthetical that _might_ let you drown healing without dying after. See, drown-healing has the problem that you'd still _die_ a couple turns later even if you get your hp above zero, since it's pretty hard to get rid of the drowning condition, but Buoyant Lifting has a rather interesting parenthetical:




> The subjects of this spell are borne toward the surface at 60 feet per round until they are floating on it. The subject then rests at the top of the liquid (rescuing it from drowning if it was a sinking air-breather) and can swim away under its own power or be moved by others (such as with a rope).

----------


## Darg

> Buoyant Lifting (SpC 40) is a 1st-level druid spell with a parenthetical that _might_ let you drown healing without dying after. See, drown-healing has the problem that you'd still _die_ a couple turns later even if you get your hp above zero, since it's pretty hard to get rid of the drowning condition, but Buoyant Lifting has a rather interesting parenthetical:


I guess it depends on if falling or dropping up is a thing. And drowning isn't a condition. You immediately start breathing again when you reach breathable air unless your DM likes movie style resuscitation without all the broken ribs.

----------


## Vaern

> In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. _Those_ are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having _literally nothing_ to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.


It's worth noting, though, that a magic immunity in 3.5 is described as working exactly like spell resistance, except that it can not be overcome.  Since it works exactly like spell resistance, a creature with magic immunity can voluntarily suppress their defenses as a standard action to willingly accept a spell's effect.  Casting Awaken Construct on a golem should be as simple as having its controller command it to not resist the spell.

More to the point...




> Flying weapons have hit dice and are valid targets of awaken construct.


I'm going to skip over the whole argument about what constitutes a "humanoid" object and cut right to the question of whether this interaction should be able to function in any circumstance.

The only description I can find of flying weapons says that they have normal hit points and hardness for a typical weapon of their type; they do not gain hit dice to determine their HP as a creature.

Animated objects are also described as objects that owe their existence as a creature to an Awaken Objects spell or a similar ability, and Awaken Construct specifically does not work on objects who are only constructs as the result of effects like Animate Objects; thus it does not work on an animated object.  The description of flying weapons says they are treated as an animated object, thus it can not be awakened.  
And a bit more to this point, which may be a bit more of a stretch...  Animate Objects is a prerequisite to craft a flying weapon, so one might still argue that a flying weapon is an object affected by the Animate Object spell even if it's not exactly under the _direct_ effect of a casting of the spell; thus Awaken Construct fails.

----------


## Promethean

> I'm going to skip over the whole argument about what constitutes a "humanoid" object and cut right to the question of whether this interaction should be able to function in any circumstance.
> 
> The only description I can find of flying weapons says that they have normal hit points and hardness for a typical weapon of their type; *they do not gain hit dice* to determine their HP as a creature.





> A flying weapon can fly at speed 30 feet and is
> treated as an animated object with hardness and hit points
> equal to a typical weapon of its kind. A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an
> animated skeleton can. Only melee weapons can have the
> flying ability.


That would be incorrect. Hardness and hitpoints are changed, but otherwise it's treated as an animated object. Animated objects have hit-dice, therefore by RAW the flying weapon would have Hit Dice.

A DM could certainly rule that the object does not have hit-dice, but that would be a house-rule.




> Animated objects are also described as objects that owe their existence as a creature to an Awaken Objects spell or a similar ability, and Awaken Construct specifically does not work on objects who are only constructs as the result of effects like Animate Objects; thus it does not work on an animated object.  The description of flying weapons says they are treated as an animated object, thus it can not be awakened.


Leaving aside that this argument is pointless, because ther are a number of other ways to put intelligence on an object: This is also incorrect




> This spell awakens a humanoid-shaped construct to humanlike sentience. An awakened constructs Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are all 3d6. *The spell does not work on constructs that are constructs only temporarily* (such as objects affected by an *animate objects spell*). The awakened creature is independent of both you and the being who originally made it, though it is initially friendly toward both you and its maker. (See MM 290 for information on skills and feats the creature gains.)


The Awakened Construct spell specifies that it ignore constructs that are temporary and uses the animates object _Spell_ as an example for context. Even if that weren't the case, it refers to the animate objects _Spell_ Specifically, not animated objects in general. By RAW, this means objects animated by things other than the spell do not get ignored by awaken construct unless they are also temporary.




> And a bit more to this point, which may be a bit more of a stretch...  Animate Objects is a prerequisite to craft a flying weapon, so one might still argue that a flying weapon is an object affected by the Animate Object spell even if it's not exactly under the _direct_ effect of a casting of the spell; thus Awaken Construct fails.


That is a house-rule.

Flying weapons aren't animated by the animate object spell, they are animate by the flying weapon feature. On top of this, the flying weapon feature does not animate as per the spell(if it did it'd technically be dispellable), it turns the weapon into an animated object directly.

As a DM you can certainly Rule that the weapon feature animates as the spell, but that is a House Rule not the RAW.

----------


## Darg

> That would be incorrect. Hardness and hitpoints are changed, but otherwise it's treated as an animated object. Animated objects have hit-dice, therefore by RAW the flying weapon would have Hit Dice.
> 
> A DM could certainly rule that the object does not have hit-dice, but that would be a house-rule.


A flying weapon is TREATED AS an animated object, that doesn't mean it IS one. If the intent or meaning was for it to BE an animated object it would have been easy enough to simply leave out the words "treated as" to make it legitimate.

----------


## Promethean

> A flying weapon is TREATED AS an animated object, that doesn't mean it IS one. If the intent or meaning was for it to BE an animated object it would have been easy enough to simply leave out the words "treated as" to make it legitimate.


And?

If it's being treated as an animated object, then you'd need to treat it as an animated object in any case where that would matter.

If the flying weapon needs to make a strength check: you use the animated object strength score, if it needs to make saves: you use animated objects save(+ bonus from enhancements), if you need to make a skill roll: you use the animated objects skill points, and if you need hit dice: you use the animated object's hit dice.

The way it's set up isn't like familiars, who only use their master's number of hit dice when needed for magic effects. It's more in line with psicrystals that have Actual hit dice for all cases where it matters, but have their HP limited to 1/2 their owner.

----------


## Darg

> And?
> 
> If it's being treated as an animated object, then you'd need to treat it as an animated object in any case where that would matter.
> 
> If the flying weapon needs to make a strength check: you use the animated object strength score, if it needs to make saves: you use animated objects save(+ bonus from enhancements), if you need to make a skill roll: you use the animated objects skill points, and if you need hit dice: you use the animated object's hit dice.
> 
> The way it's set up isn't like familiars, who only use their master's number of hit dice when needed for magic effects. It's more in line with psicrystals that have Actual hit dice for all cases where it matters, but have their HP limited to 1/2 their owner.


Just because it is treated as an animated object, that doesn't mean it has the stats of an animated object. It's still a magic weapon and has saving throws of 2 + ½CL. Assuming it gains everything an animated object does is just that, an assumption. Just because the RAW doesn't expound upon it or provide rules on how it should be adjudicated, doesn't make extrapolation RAW.

The difference is that a flying weapon ISN'T an animated object, just treated as one. Where one draws the line between them is extremely murky.

----------


## Promethean

> Just because it is treated as an animated object, that doesn't mean it has the stats of an animated object. It's still a magic weapon and has saving throws of 2 + ½CL. Assuming it gains everything an animated object does is just that, an assumption. Just because the RAW doesn't expound upon it or provide rules on how it should be adjudicated, doesn't make extrapolation RAW.
> 
> The difference is that a flying weapon ISN'T an animated object, just treated as one. Where one draws the line between them is extremely murky.


The same kind of murky RAW that people post about in this thread because it allows hilarious things?

You know... the thing this thread is for?

----------


## Darg

> The same kind of murky RAW that people post about in this thread because it allows hilarious things?
> 
> You know... the thing this thread is for?


I don't see it as the same thing. The theory in question is predicated on rules that haven't been written. Which is technically not RAW. It's like the monk's perfect self feature. The original iteration in 3.0 didn't have the "for the purpose of spells and magical effects," but it still didn't confer the traits or stats of being an outsider. My argument is that the flying weapon does not have HD for instance, not that it can't be targeted by spells that target constructs.

----------


## Promethean

> I don't see it as the same thing. The theory in question is predicated on rules that haven't been written. Which is technically not RAW. It's like the monk's perfect self feature. The original iteration in 3.0 didn't have the "for the purpose of spells and magical effects," but it still didn't confer the traits or stats of being an outsider. My argument is that the flying weapon does not have HD for instance, not that it can't be targeted by spells that target constructs.


You are basing your argument on rules that haven't been written as well though.

You can not interpret that the Flying enhancement definitively does not give HD in one statement and argue against the ambiguity of the rules allowing one to say it Does give HD by saying ambiguous rules can't be left open to interpretation in the other. You are making an interpretation where there are no rules and then saying "You can't do that" when another person does the same.

The wording of the rules is "treated as an animated object", whether that means "has stats of an animated object" or not is not specified. My interpretation is that it does and the rules do not say anything to disprove this.

----------


## Darg

> You are basing your argument on rules that haven't been written as well though.
> 
> You can not interpret that the Flying enhancement definitively does not give HD in one statement and argue against the ambiguity of the rules allowing one to say it Does give HD by saying ambiguous rules can't be left open to interpretation in the other. You are making an interpretation where there are no rules and then saying "You can't do that" when another person does the same.
> 
> The wording of the rules is "treated as an animated object", whether that means "has stats of an animated object" or not is not specified. My interpretation is that it does and the rules do not say anything to disprove this.


If the rules don't say something it doesn't mean you fill in the blank. A monk with perfect self is treated as an outsider for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Does that mean they can use touch spells with full BAB? What about giving you 90ft of darkvision using the deep vision feat from races of stone? It does not say you are conferred the traits and features of an outsider for the purposes of spells and magical effects. So naturally, you aren't. The same can be said for not being conferred the stat block of an animated object.

----------


## Promethean

> If the rules don't say something it doesn't mean you fill in the blank. A monk with perfect self is treated as an outsider for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Does that mean they can use touch spells with full BAB? What about giving you 90ft of darkvision using the deep vision feat from races of stone? It does not say you are conferred the traits and features of an outsider for the purposes of spells and magical effects. So naturally, you aren't. The same can be said for not being conferred the stat block of an animated object.


Except in this case the interpretation isn't being tacked on arbitrarily to a complete set of rules, the rules themselves leave a void that Needs to be filled in order to function because they're incomplete. 

In such a case, Anyone's ruling is fair game.

----------


## Darg

> In such a case, Anyone's ruling is fair game.


Which isn't RAW. RAW is what the rules tell you, not what is extrapolated to make it work right.

RAW is more like not being able actually make a planar binding more secure with a magic circle because the 10 minute cast time prevents it from being cast 1 round after the magic circle spell.

----------


## Promethean

> Which isn't RAW. RAW is what the rules tell you, not what is extrapolated to make it work right.


It's RAW legal though and the existing RAW forces you to fill in for the incomplete rules.

And that's good enough for me.

----------


## Vaern

> That would be incorrect. Hardness and hitpoints are changed, but otherwise it's treated as an animated object. Animated objects have hit-dice, therefore by RAW the flying weapon would have Hit Dice.
> 
> A DM could certainly rule that the object does not have hit-dice, but that would be a house-rule.


As previously pointed out, it is _treated_ as an animated object, but doesn't _become_ an animated object.  Its hit points and hardness are equal to a typical weapon of its type, which you can find these stats in the rules for breaking objects.  If you were to instead draw stats from the animated object stat block based, its hardness would stay the same but its HP would be determined strictly by its size rather than what type of weapon it is.  Granting it HD for becoming an animated object and changing its HP would be inconsistent with the description of the flying weapon property.  The weapon already has hardness and HP typical for a weapon of its kind before becoming a flying weapon.  The property's description specifies that these are the values that it has, rather than gaining new stats as listed in the animated object stat block.

A DM could certainly rule that the object does have hit-dice, but that would be a house-rule.




> The Awakened Construct spell specifies that it ignore constructs that are temporary and uses the animates object _Spell_ as an example for context. Even if that weren't the case, it refers to the animate objects _Spell_ Specifically, not animated objects in general. By RAW, this means objects animated by things other than the spell do not get ignored by awaken construct unless they are also temporary.


The example given in Awaken Construct is an _example_, so saying that it applies only to that spell and nothing else would be a house rule. The example is not an absolute limit to the spell's potential restrictions.  Awaken Construct doesn't affect objects turned into construct by effects *such as* Animate Objects; animated objects are objects that are treated as creatures as the result of Animate Objects *or similar abilities*.
Animated objects by their RAW Monster Manual description exist due to *effects like Animate Objects.*
Awaken Construct doesn't work on things animated by *effects like Animate Objects.*
If you draw a Venn diagram of these two things, the result is a circle.  




> That is a house-rule.


I'd call it a simple judgement call. I generally use "house rule" to refer to a rule someone implements that directly changes, ignores, or contradicts RAW.  In this case, RAW gives an example, and then demands that the DM makes a decision regarding whether a scenario is similar enough to that example to be included or excluded.  You could argue either way in a case like this without changing, ignoring, or contradicting RAW, but ultimately _anything_ deferring to personal judgement falls into RAI territory.  In the case of such a judgement call any decision could be considered a house rule, so simply brushing something off as being just a house rule is not a fair argument as your own ruling would _also_ be nothing more than a house rule.
Giving a flying weapon HP based on the sunder table and giving a flying weapon HD and HP based on the animated objects stat block are both RAI conclusions, each falling back on a different RAW resource from the same vagueness of text.  
Whether or not being treated as an animated object makes the object similar enough to a spell's effect to be excluded is a judgement call demanded by RAW, and neither decision is necessarily RAW itself.
Neither of us is objectively right or wrong in this case, though I'll still argue that my ruling appears to be more consistent with what text suggests and provides more evidence to support my judgement than yours.  

Humor me with another hypothetical scenario relating to animated objects and Awaken Construct:
By RAW, Animate Objects can be made permanent via the Permanency spell.
By RAW, you can not use Awaken Construct on *temporary* constructs such as through made by the Animate Objects spell.
In this case, the constructs created by Animate Objects are *not* temporary.  But, they *are* constructs as the result of Animate Objects. 
Animate Objects was called out as an example for a criteria that its effect no longer meets.
A player wants to awaken an animated statue. Now...

Do you allow Awaken Construct to be used on such an object, since the effect is no longer temporary?  
Do you deny Awaken Construct, since the animated object is still the effect of the spell used as a specific example?
RAW seems to contradict itself.  Neither decision is objectively right or wrong.  
How do you decide whether it should or shouldn't be allowed in this case?
What other resources or criteria do you look at to make that decision? 
Now, is the way you made that decision _also_ applicable to this scenario regarding flying weapons?

I am curious to see how you would handle this situation.  I would personally not allow it, for reasons which would also apply to the flying weapon.  The reasoning behind the decision would not be strictly RAW, but it would result in a guided judgement call that neither contradicts, ignores, nor changes RAW, while allowing me to make consistent rulings across several similar situations.




> Flying weapons aren't animated by the animate object spell, they are animate by the flying weapon feature. On top of this, the flying weapon feature does not animate as per the spell(if it did it'd technically be dispellable), it turns the weapon into an animated object directly.
> 
> As a DM you can certainly Rule that the weapon feature animates as the spell, but that is a House Rule not the RAW.


I _did_ say I was reaching with that one.  This would _absolutely_ be a straight-up house rule, even by the standards of my prior semantic nitpicking :P

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> Humor me with another hypothetical scenario relating to animated objects and Awaken Construct:
> By RAW, Animate Objects can be made permanent via the Permanency spell.
> By RAW, you can not use Awaken Construct on *temporary* constructs such as through made by the Animate Objects spell.
> In this case, the constructs created by Animate Objects are *not* temporary.  But, they *are* constructs as the result of Animate Objects. 
> Animate Objects was called out as an example for a criteria that its effect no longer meets.
> A player wants to awaken an animated statue. Now...
> 
> Do you allow Awaken Construct to be used on such an object, since the effect is no longer temporary?  
> Do you deny Awaken Construct, since the animated object is still the effect of the spell used as a specific example?
> ...


I'd say the construct is still temporary. There's still magic in its movement. It can be dispelled, or immobilized in an antimagic field, or anything else. 
A flying sword is treated as an animated object, could probably be humanoid-shaped and is definitely as permanent as it could be. Allowing to Awaken it doesn't break anything, both in rules and balance. It would just become an intelligent item (as in, an item with intelligence), with an Ego score calculated as normal, but no special power. Then, you could probably graft it if it allows it, but I don't think it would.

----------


## Vaern

> I'd say the construct is still temporary. There's still magic in its movement. It can be dispelled, or immobilized in an antimagic field, or anything else. 
> A flying sword is treated as an animated object, could probably be humanoid-shaped and is definitely as permanent as it could be. Allowing to Awaken it doesn't break anything, both in rules and balance. It would just become an intelligent item (as in, an item with intelligence), with an Ego score calculated as normal, but no special power. Then, you could probably graft it if it allows it, but I don't think it would.


I'd probably look at the ways that animated object differ from other constructs like golems and land on hardness as a trait that's consistently mechanically different.  Most constructs have a decent amount of damage reduction, as they are proper creatures.  Hardness is a quality exclusive to objects, and animated objects retaining their hardness stands as an indicator that they are objects that have been made to like creatures rather than being proper creatures in their own right.  The presence or absence of hardness seems to me like it would be a very simple yet reasonable metric for determining whether something is similar enough to Animate Objects to deny the use of Awaken Construct on it, which would bar both the permanent animated object and the flying weapon from being valid targets.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> I'd probably look at the ways that animated object differ from other constructs like golems and land on hardness as a trait that's consistently mechanically different.  Most constructs have a decent amount of damage reduction, as they are proper creatures.  Hardness is a quality exclusive to objects, and animated objects retaining their hardness stands as an indicator that they are objects that have been made to like creatures rather than being proper creatures in their own right.  The presence or absence of hardness seems to me like it would be a very simple yet reasonable metric for determining whether something is similar enough to Animate Objects to deny the use of Awaken Construct on it, which would bar both the permanent animated object and the flying weapon from being valid targets.


The Caryatid Column from Fiend Folio, as well as the Wickerman and the web Astral Tasker all have hardness, and are definitely creatures. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason why you wouldn't be able to Awaken the Wicker Man, and the Caryatid Column already has Intelligence and Charisma scores.

----------


## Tzardok

> The Caryatid Column from Fiend Folio, as well as the Wickerman and the web Astral Tasker all have hardness, and are definitely creatures. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason why you wouldn't be able to Awaken the Wicker Man, and the Caryatid Column already has Intelligence and Charisma scores.


Weren't those changed to DR in the 3.5 conversion booklet?

----------


## loky1109

> As previously pointed out, it is _treated_ as an animated object, but doesn't _become_ an animated object.  Its hit points and hardness are equal to a typical weapon of its type, which you can find these stats in the rules for breaking objects. If you were to instead draw stats from the animated object stat block based, its hardness would stay the same but its HP would be determined strictly by its size rather than what type of weapon it is. Granting it HD for becoming an animated object and changing its HP would be inconsistent with the description of the flying weapon property.





> Giving a flying weapon HP based on the sunder table and giving a flying weapon HD and HP based on the animated objects stat block are both RAI conclusions, each falling back on a different RAW resource from the same vagueness of text.


Having HD doesn't mean having HD-based hp. Flying weapon clearly could has hp equal typical weapon of its type AND HD as animated object of its size. Independently of each other.

----------


## Promethean

> As previously pointed out, it is _treated_ as an animated object, but doesn't _become_ an animated object.  Its hit points and hardness are equal to a typical weapon of its type, which you can find these stats in the rules for breaking objects.  If you were to instead draw stats from the animated object stat block based, its hardness would stay the same but its HP would be determined strictly by its size rather than what type of weapon it is.  Granting it HD for becoming an animated object and changing its HP would be inconsistent with the description of the flying weapon property.  The weapon already has hardness and HP typical for a weapon of its kind before becoming a flying weapon.  The property's description specifies that these are the values that it has, rather than gaining new stats as listed in the animated object stat block.
> 
> A DM could certainly rule that the object does have hit-dice, but that would be a house-rule.


Except constructs that have Hit-points entirely divorced from their hit dice exist and "specific trumps general" is a thing that exists. See Psicrystal for example. A psicrystal always has 1/2 it's masters hit points despite having real HD, meaning that if it's master's hit points are low enough, it can have less hit points than it's HD would indicate.

Similarly, the Flying trait specifies that hardness and hitpoints are of a weapon of it's type, which over-rides the general rule that construct hit-points are determined by size and hit dice. The flying weapon enhancement doesn't mention any change to animate object hit dice, therefore it does not change as "missing entries are treated as unmodified".

You could certainly remove HD, but that would be a houserule.  :Small Tongue: 




> The example given in Awaken Construct is an _example_, so saying that it applies only to that spell and nothing else would be a house rule. The example is not an absolute limit to the spell's potential restrictions.  Awaken Construct doesn't affect objects turned into construct by effects *such as* Animate Objects; animated objects are objects that are treated as creatures as the result of Animate Objects *or similar abilities*.
> Animated objects by their RAW Monster Manual description exist due to *effects like Animate Objects.*
> Awaken Construct doesn't work on things animated by *effects like Animate Objects.*
> If you draw a Venn diagram of these two things, the result is a circle.


Except for these line here:




> The spell does not work on constructs that are constructs only temporarily (such as objects affected by an animate objects spell)





> Animated objects come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. They owe their existence as creatures to spells *such as* animate objects *or similar supernatural abilities*.


Your argument here falls apart here. The exclusion specifies temporary constructs and uses an example of "objects animated by the animate object Spell" _specifically_(the wording "effects like" is never used), but animated object don't require the spell as you say they do. Their references they can come from *effects like* animated object *or other supernatural abilities*, but *do not* require the spell specifically.




> 1. *I'd call it a simple judgement call.* I generally use "house rule" to refer to a rule someone implements that directly changes, ignores, or contradicts RAW.  In this case, RAW gives an example, and then demands that the DM makes a decision regarding whether a scenario is similar enough to that example to be included or excluded.  You could argue either way in a case like this without changing, ignoring, or contradicting RAW, but ultimately _anything_ deferring to personal judgement falls into RAI territory.  In the case of such a judgement call any decision could be considered a house rule, so simply brushing something off as being just a house rule is not a fair argument as your own ruling would _also_ be nothing more than a house rule.
> Giving a flying 2. *weapon HP* based on the sunder table and giving a flying weapon 2. *HD and HP based on the animated objects stat block* are both RAI conclusions, each falling back on a different RAW resource from the same vagueness of text.  
> Whether or not being treated as an animated object makes the object similar enough to a spell's effect to be excluded is a judgement call demanded by RAW, and neither decision is necessarily RAW itself.
> Neither of us is objectively right or wrong in this case, 3.*though I'll still argue that my ruling appears to be more consistent with what text suggests and provides more evidence to support my judgement than yours.*


Sure. My understanding is that when the RAW demands a judgement call, any judgement call that doesn't contradict the rules can then be considered "standing RAW". The RAW itself is what's demanding a judgement call after all. If someone has a different "Standing raw" at their table, cool, but that doesn't invalidate another tables interpretation is still valid by RAW.

For the second highlight, I think it'd be closer to RAW for the Flying weapon to have weapon Hit Points and animated object HD that don't add anything to it's hitpoints(similar to psicrystal HD).

The third Highlight I disagree, you misunderstood my point(flying weapons do not and never would use Animated object _Hitpoints_) and I presented evidence that your point isn't as backed up as you believe.




> Humor me with another hypothetical scenario relating to animated objects and Awaken Construct:
> By RAW, Animate Objects can be made permanent via the Permanency spell.
> By RAW, you can not use Awaken Construct on *temporary* constructs such as through made by the Animate Objects spell.
> In this case, the constructs created by Animate Objects are *not* temporary.  But, they *are* constructs as the result of Animate Objects. 
> Animate Objects was called out as an example for a criteria that its effect no longer meets.
> A player wants to awaken an animated statue. Now...
> 
> Do you allow Awaken Construct to be used on such an object, since the effect is no longer temporary?  
> Do you deny Awaken Construct, since the animated object is still the effect of the spell used as a specific example?
> ...


I'd rule Awaken construct works. The animated construct spell was used as an example to emphasize what the spell means by "Temporary", if the spell itself does not fulfil the condition of "Temporary", then I would rule the contradiction in the RAW in favor of the spell working.




> I _did_ say I was reaching with that one.  This would _absolutely_ be a straight-up house rule, even by the standards of my prior semantic nitpicking :P


Isn't endless nitpicks about systems, contradictions, and exploits, by reading so far into the rules that we're arguing about the very Grammar of each sentence, what RAW discussions are about?

How else am I supposed to LARP a Modron Reality Lawyer.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> Weren't those changed to DR in the 3.5 conversion booklet?


No. There is one guideline for DR update saying "Use adamantine to bypass damage reduction in cases where a creature's damage reduction is almost like hardness: for most constructs, creatures whose bodies are made of inorganic material, and for spell effects like iron body and stoneskin.", but not only is hardness not DR per se (hence not concerned with that paragraph), there is a specific list of updated DRs for Fiend Folio, and neither Wicker Man nor Caryatid Column are in it.

----------


## Darg

> My understanding is that when the RAW demands a judgement call, any judgement call that doesn't contradict the rules can then be considered "standing RAW". The RAW itself is what's demanding a judgement call after all. If someone has a different "Standing raw" at their table, cool, but that doesn't invalidate another tables interpretation is still valid by RAW.


That isn't RAW though. RAW is specifically what the rules tell you. "Treated as" is not the same as "is." The flying weapon doesn't gain the stats of an animated object unless it IS an animated object or it tells you that it does. What you are actually doing is RAI where extrapolation can be used to find a way for the rule with holes to work within the meaning of the given text. On the flip side it could also be the intent that it is not an animated object so that it can still be used as a weapon and retain its weapon statistics and enhancement bonuses and abilities. There are no consequences for having nonabilities. Nonabilities have a modifier of +0, automatically failing str checks isn't a problem when an animated object of the same size practically fail them just as much, and the magic allows it to move. The lack of being an actual creature means not having dark vision/low light vision doesn't hamper it.

Honestly, I'd rather have a flying large greatsword +5 flaming, shock, collision, etc than a small animated object.

----------


## loky1109

> "Treated as" is not the same as "is."


Well, let say us what does "treated as" mean? In what cases we should "treat as" and why these cases, but not in some others? Why "having HD" is beyond the acceptable? Where we should draw the line?




> Honestly, I'd rather have a flying large greatsword +5 flaming, shock, collision, etc than a small animated object.


Why do you choose when you can have both?

----------


## ShurikVch

Question: wasn't Flying weapon from _Magic of Faerûn_ (August 2001) superseded by Flying weapon from _Oriental Adventures_ (October 2001)?

----------


## Promethean

> Question: wasn't Flying weapon from _Magic of Faerûn_ (August 2001) superseded by Flying weapon from _Oriental Adventures_ (October 2001)?


I'm honestly not sure on that. They are clearly not the same enhancement.

One allows the user to fly, while the other animates the weapon. 

Still, that means one could have a Flying sword of flying...

----------


## Darg

> Well, let say us what does "treated as" mean? In what cases we should "treat as" and why these cases, but not in some others? Why "having HD" is beyond the acceptable? Where we should draw the line?


There isn't much of a line other than the fact that you can't benefit from both sides. It is either treated as a animated object in all regards or treated as an animated object only when relevant




> Why do you choose when you can have both?


Because if you treat it as an animated object in all regards, you have to treat it as a creature in all cases. A creature is not a weapon mechanically. Honestly, losing the high saves of being a magic item isn't worth the designation of being a creature.

But, as I mentioned RAI can be that it's meant have qualities of both. The real question is what kind of maneuverability does the fly speed have?

----------


## Promethean

> There isn't much of a line other than the fact that you can't benefit from both sides. It is either treated as a animated object in all regards or treated as an animated object only when relevant
> 
> 
> 
> Because if you treat it as an animated object in all regards, you have to treat it as a creature in all cases. A creature is not a weapon mechanically. Honestly, losing the high saves of being a magic item isn't worth the designation of being a creature.
> 
> But, as I mentioned RAI can be that it's meant have qualities of both. The real question is what kind of maneuverability does the fly speed have?


That isn't true at all.

May I direct you to the intelligent item rules, where magic items are counted as both intelligent creatures of the construct type and magic items that can gaing further enhancements at the same time.

Creature/magic item isn't a binary designator RAWalready has examples that count as both.

----------


## Darg

> That isn't true at all.
> 
> May I direct you to the intelligent item rules, where magic items are counted as both intelligent creatures of the construct type and magic items that can gaing further enhancements at the same time.
> 
> Creature/magic item isn't a binary designator RAWalready has examples that count as both.


In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.

----------


## ShurikVch

> In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.


Ahem!..



> The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golems description.


Also, in the "Tears for Twilight Hollow" adventure (_Dungeon_ #90), Digging Machine and Beholder Machine are both Constructs with no HD

----------


## Promethean

> In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.


There's literally an entire creature species called a "Symbiont" that disagrees with this. They're able to provide enhancement bonuses and spell charges just as any magic item as well. Example:




> Damage Reduction (Ex): A living breastplate has
> damage reduction 10/byeshk and imparts this benefi t
> upon its host.
> Enhance Constitution (Su): A living breastplate
> provides its owner with a *+4 enhancement bonus to Constitution* for as long as it is worn.
> Light Fortifi cation (Ex): A living breastplate has
> light fortifi cation (25% chance to negate any critical hit
> or sneak attack) and imparts this ability to its host.
> Stabilize Host (Su): A living breastplate can stabilize
> ...



The entire "Magic Fang" line of spells also disagree with this, as the entire point of that is allowing creatures to count as both the user and the item for the purposes of enhancement bonuses and other effects. They can be made permanent as well.

Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.

There is no mechanic or rule that prevents a living creature from functioning as a magic item. In fact, there's much evidence to the opposite.

----------


## Darg

> Ahem!..
> 
> 
> Also, in the "Tears for Twilight Hollow" adventure (_Dungeon_ #90), Digging Machine and Beholder Machine are both Constructs with no HD


But are golems actually a magic item? Would you say that they could be dispelled to disable them temporarily like a magic item? What stats do they have when they lose their magic? I think it's a hard sell to say that a golem continues being a magic item after creation rather than to take the rule into context as it talks about the characteristics for magic item creation.




> There's literally an entire creature species called a "Symbiont" that disagrees with this. They're able to provide enhancement bonuses and spell charges just as any magic item as well. Example:


There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.




> The entire "Magic Fang" line of spells also disagree with this, as the entire point of that is allowing creatures to count as both the user and the item for the purposes of enhancement bonuses and other effects. They can be made permanent as well.
> 
> Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.
> 
> There is no mechanic or rule that prevents a living creature from functioning as a magic item. In fact, there's much evidence to the opposite.


The rules are full of exceptions, but they state what they are. Symbionts are called a magic item by the chapter header and are a creature.

As for magic fang, enhancement bonuses apply to weapons, armor, creatures, or ability scores. Nothing is saying that a natural weapon is an item.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.


Doesn't that just prove that something that states "treated as a Construct" (note, not in any situation, in all situations) while still mentioning that it is a weapon in its description is such an exception? The flying weapon can clearly attack on its own ("A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an animated skeleton can." "The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place."), which means it has a BAB and a Dex score. Animated Objects have stats only depending on their size. 
Why is it a problem that something "treated as an animated object except it has HP and Hardness as a regular weapon" would have HD as an animated object while treated as such? Why is it a problem to be considered as two things when we have such exceptions all over the books?

----------


## Tzardok

> Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.


No, it's 3rd party. 3rd party that is officially endorsed as the continuation of Dark Sun into 3.x, but still 3rd party.

----------


## Promethean

> But are golems actually a magic item? Would you say that they could be dispelled to disable them temporarily like a magic item? What stats do they have when they lose their magic? I think it's a hard sell to say that a golem continues being a magic item after creation rather than to take the rule into context as it talks about the characteristics for magic item creation.


Yes, their description says so.

Sure they could be dispelled, The rules for what dispell does to magic items are clearly laid out. They wouldn't be the first monster weak to dispell, so are living spells. Golems just have protection thanks to their infinite spell resistance.

Hit points of their Hit points and no hardness unless they state a given hardness.





> There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.
> 
> 
> 
> The rules are full of exceptions, but they state what they are. Symbionts are called a magic item by the chapter header and are a creature.
> 
> As for magic fang, enhancement bonuses apply to weapons, armor, creatures, or ability scores. Nothing is saying that a natural weapon is an item.


And intelligent items and Flying weapons wouldn't be one of the laundry list of exceptions because...?

----------


## Vaern

> The flying weapon can clearly attack on its own ("A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an animated skeleton can."
> ... 
> Why is it a problem that something "treated as an animated object except it has HP and Hardness as a regular weapon"


I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item. 
As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item. 
> As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
> Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.


Oh, yeah, absolutely. The guarding function of flying is terrible. The main function is to have the weapon fly to your hand during a fight or to call it back if it goes overboard when you're in a flying ship. Anything more and it would be overpowered for a +1 ability.

----------


## Promethean

> I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item. 
> As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
> Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.


Wouldn't it's enhancements still apply to it's natural attacks similar to the magic fang series of spells?

If not, it has still has HD.  Have it take weapon proficiency(its weapon type) as it's first feat upon gaining intelligence >3 and have draw + wield itself.

The latter falls under the same "technically true" RAW as removing your armor and standing inside it for full cover, but we're already in a thread for funny RAW so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

----------


## Vaern

> Oh, yeah, absolutely. The guarding function of flying is terrible. The main function is to have the weapon fly to your hand during a fight or to call it back if it goes overboard when you're in a flying ship. Anything more and it would be overpowered for a +1 ability.


I have no idea why, but for some reason I had it in my head that it was meant to function as a synergy enhancement for a dancing weapon or something xD




> Wouldn't it's enhancements still apply to it's natural attacks similar to the magic fang series of spells?


It's definitely well within RAW to allow it, but it may vary from one property to the next depending on how it's worded.  Just about anything that deals damage will say "this weapon deals extra damage," which would technically make it a quality of the weapon itself and not just weapon attacks made by a creature using the weapon.  But, some properties might say "attacks with this weapon deal extra damage" or have some effect, which one could argue does not apply to an attack the weapon is making on its own.

----------


## Tzardok

> It's definitely well within RAW to allow it, but it may vary from one property to the next depending on how it's worded.  Just about anything that deals damage will say "this weapon deals extra damage," which would technically make it a quality of the weapon itself and not just weapon attacks made by a creature using the weapon.  But, some properties might say "attacks with this weapon deal extra damage" or have some effect, which one could argue does not apply to an attack the weapon is making on its own.


I would disagree with the notion that the RAW of weapon enchantments allows this. Enchantments can be pretty finicky. A dual weapon's ends must be seperately enchanted, even with weapon properties that say "this weapon deals extra damage". Or take the fact that a shield may have weapon enchantments that improve its shield strike and amor enchantments that improve its value as a shield, and those are completely indiependent of each other. From that it seems logical that an animated sword's enchantments would only affect its use as a wielded sword, as they are "this sword's enchantments" and not "this sword's natural weapon's enchantments".

----------


## Bohandas

On a largely unrelated note, except that it also involves magic items, has anyone else noticed that most of the limits that the epic magic item creation feats allow you to exceed don't actually seem to exist in the rules?

I've been going through the SRD and as far as I can tell there's no limit on enhancement bonuses to ability scores, no limit to weapon mods as long as they aren't enhancement bonuses, and the intelligent item rules explicitly allow items to cost more than 200000 gp (one of the item special purpose abilities ("Item can use true resurrection on wielder, once per month") costs 200000 gp by itself and necessarily goes on an item that already has significant other abilities). The only one that seems to actually exist is the limit on weapon plusses.

So if you take an epic item creation feat (other than craft epic arms and armor) you're basically buying a 10x markup on everything you make

----------


## Tzardok

Maybe those are restrictions that existed in 3.0, but weren't transfered to 3.5?

----------


## Darg

> On a largely unrelated note, except that it also involves magic items, has anyone else noticed that most of the limits that the epic magic item creation feats allow you to exceed don't actually seem to exist in the rules?
> 
> I've been going through the SRD and as far as I can tell there's no limit on enhancement bonuses to ability scores, no limit to weapon mods as long as they aren't enhancement bonuses, and the intelligent item rules explicitly allow items to cost more than 200000 gp (one of the item special purpose abilities ("Item can use true resurrection on wielder, once per month") costs 200000 gp by itself and necessarily goes on an item that already has significant other abilities). The only one that seems to actually exist is the limit on weapon plusses.
> 
> So if you take an epic item creation feat (other than craft epic arms and armor) you're basically buying a 10x markup on everything you make





> In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). *A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10.* A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.


That +10 is a limit. That said, you can add qualities that don't modify the effective enhancement bonus ad infinitum.

That said, nothing says spells and abilities are limited by it.

----------


## Bohandas

> That +10 is a limit. That said, you can add qualities that don't modify the effective enhancement bonus ad infinitum.
> 
> That said, nothing says spells and abilities are limited by it.


I stand corrected regarding the weapons.

The other supposed resteictions still don't seem to exist though. There's nothing in the core rules that prevents you from making a Headband of Intellect +8 with plain old Craft Wondrous Item, all the epic rules do is allow you to craft the same item for 10x the price

(With the exception of Epic Spellcasting,) the epic rules in general - contrary to their name - seem to significantly nerf characters who use their rules. The magic items are marked up, the DCs the epic skill usages are way higher than what a reasonable DM would set, fighters don't get their full +1 bab per level, etc.

"What precisely is epic about this?"
"The price."

----------


## Promethean

> I stand corrected regarding the weapons.
> 
> The other supposed resteictions still don't seem to exist though. There's nothing in the core rules that prevents you from making a Headband of Intellect +8 with plain old Craft Wondrous Item, all the epic rules do is allow you to craft the same item for 10x the price
> 
> (With the exception of Epic Spellcasting,) the epic rules in general - contrary to their name - seem to significantly nerf characters who use their rules. The magic items are marked up, the DCs the epic skill usages are way higher than what a reasonable DM would set, fighters don't get their full +1 bab per level, etc.
> 
> "What precisely is epic about this?"
> "The price."


I'm pretty sure the Epic rules exist solely as a "Gold Sink" mechanism for high level play.

The purpose isn't for "Beyond 20th Level" gameplay, it's to perpetuate 20th level gameplay eternally by providing the illusion of advancement through the use of incremental(read as useless) increases that get exponentially more expensive over time.

The only place they really messed up and provided a genuine level of power over 20th is with epic spellcasting/epic manifesting, solely because they accidentally provided a way to make it actually Useful by using DC reducers(without which the caster would be requiring a DC 80+ check and a 10th level spell slot just to cast the equivalent of _Fireball_. I.E. completely useless for anything but flavor).

----------


## Bohandas

> I'm pretty sure the Epic rules exist solely as a "Gold Sink" mechanism for high level play.
> 
> The purpose isn't for "Beyond 20th Level" gameplay, it's to perpetuate 20th level gameplay eternally by providing the illusion of advancement through the use of incremental(read as useless) increases that get exponentially more expensive over time.


But even in that context it's broken because the prices of a lot of these things already increased exponentially. The cost of an bonus scales by the sqaure of the bonus' magnitude.

----------


## Promethean

> But even in that context it's broken because the prices of a lot of these things already increased exponentially. The cost of an bonus scales by the sqaure of the bonus' magnitude.


*even more exponential, like comparing cubes to squares.

At 20th level players have no shortage of options for breaking the gold and XP economies respectively, so the prices for things Have to be ridiculous to eat some of that excess.

----------


## Bohandas

> The only place they really messed up and provided a genuine level of power over 20th is with epic spellcasting/epic manifesting, solely because they accidentally provided a way to make it actually Useful by using DC reducers(without which the caster would be requiring a DC 80+ check and a 10th level spell slot just to cast the equivalent of _Fireball_. I.E. completely useless for anything but flavor).


Some of the DC reducers are actually kind of underpowered. In a lot of cases you'd be better off having secondary casters use the aid another action for a +2 bonus rather than have them contribute a 1st level spell slot for a +1 bonus and also needing to have them there every time to have any chance of casting the spell at all

----------


## sreservoir

Neither quadratic nor scalar multiplication is anywhere near exponential, let alone even more exponential!

----------


## Promethean

> Neither quadratic nor scalar multiplication is anywhere near exponential, let alone even more exponential!


WDYM?

The equation for magic items squares the value. A square is a literal exponent.

----------


## Tzardok

> WDYM?
> 
> The equation for magic items squares the value. A square is a literal exponent.


Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2x, not x2.

Edit: To give an example why exponential growth is bad (at least in this context), let's look at a table:

*x*
*x2*
*2x*

1
1
2

2
4
4

3
9
8

4
16
16

5
25
32

6
36
64

7
49
128

8
64
256

9
81
512

10
100
1024



Sooner, rather than later, an exponential function will overtake anything else.

----------


## Promethean

> Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2x, not x2.


Alright then. I'll go with the fact that using "exponential" in the way I did is such a common colloquialism that it's misused version has been added to the dictionary as it's most common definition.




> ex·po·nen·tial
> /ˌekspəˈnen(t)SH(ə)l/
> Learn to pronounce
> adjective
> 1.
> (of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
> "the social security budget was rising at an exponential rate"
> 2.
> MATHEMATICS
> ...

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2x, not x2.
> 
> Edit: To give an example why exponential growth is bad (at least in this context), let's look at a table:
> 
> *x*
> *x2*
> *2x*
> 
> 1
> ...


There's always the gamma function! Aka factorials extended to all positive real numbers. Scales even faster! For reference, Gamma(11) = 10! = 3628800. You can approximate the factorial function for "large" (ie > 1) n as roughly n! ~ sqrt(2*pi*n)*(n/e)^n (where e is the base of the natural logarithms). So O(n^n). Like exponential...where both base and exponent depend on n.

----------


## Tzardok

> There's always the gamma function! Aka factorials extended to all positive real numbers. Scales even faster! For reference, Gamma(11) = 10! = 3628800. You can approximate the factorial function for "large" (ie > 1) n as roughly n! ~ sqrt(2*pi*n)*(n/e)^n (where e is the base of the natural logarithms). So O(n^n). Like exponential...where both base and exponent depend on n.


Damn son, that's fast! In what contexts do you use this thing?

----------


## ciopo

Behold the fun! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut...arrow_notation

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Damn son, that's fast! In what contexts do you use this thing?


Combinatorics.

For example, take the 5e wizard (because it's what I know best). Level 20, 44 spells in his spell book, can prepare any 25 of them each day. How many days can he go between repeats, if order doesn't matter (so preparing A and B is the same as B and A)? The formula is n!/(r! (n - r)!), Where n = 44 and r = 25. The answer? About 1.4 x 10^ 12. 1.4 trillion.

----------


## Darg

> Combinatorics.
> 
> For example, take the 5e wizard (because it's what I know best). Level 20, 44 spells in his spell book, can prepare any 25 of them each day. How many days can he go between repeats, if order doesn't matter (so preparing A and B is the same as B and A)? The formula is n!/(r! (n - r)!), Where n = 44 and r = 25. The answer? About 1.4 x 10^ 12. 1.4 trillion.


Enjoy the 3.8 billion years of fresh.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

> Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2x, not x2.


This is straight up false. 

X * X is exponential growth. X * C (where C is a constant) is geometric growth. Any XN is exponential by definition, just as any NX is.

The equation y = x2 is the most basic example of an exponential curve.

----------


## Tzardok

> This is straight up false. 
> 
> X * X is exponential growth. X * C (where C is a constant) is geometric growth. Any XN is exponential by definition, just as any NX is.
> 
> The equation y = x2 is the most basic example of an exponential curve.


Wrong. Utterly wrong. X2 is not an exponential curve. It's a quadratic one. The term exponential growth is in mathematics exclusively used for when the x is the exponent, not the base.

If you do not believe someone who once studied mathematics, maybe read the relevant wikipedia article.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

> Wrong. Utterly wrong. X2 is not an exponential curve. It's a quadratic one. The term exponential growth is in mathematics exclusively used for when the x is the exponent, not the base.
> 
> If you do not believe someone who once studied mathematics, maybe read the relevant wikipedia article.


First of all, quadratic specifically refers only to squared exponents (y = x2). It's only one example of an exponential curve.

Secondly, I counter your wikipedia article with this one about exponents.

----------


## Tzardok

> First of all, quadratic specifically refers only to squared exponents (y = x2).


First of all, so what? You used x2 as an example, so I talked about it. I know that x3 is called cubic, and that any xn is called a polynomial equation, but that's not what we talking about, did we?




> Secondly, I counter your wikipedia article with this one about exponents.


Secondly, so what? Nothing in your article talks about exponential functions, only about exponents. Just because an exponent appears in an equation doesn't mean that it has an exponential curve. Or do you think y=23 is an exponential curve? Of course not, it is a constant, the most simple polynomial curve. Well, what about y=23x0? Is that exponential? Of course not, it's still a constant. But certainly it will become exponential if we raise the exponent by 1, to y=23x1? No, still not exponential. It's a geometric curve, also a form of polynomial curve. What if we raise the exponent again? y=23x2 still isn't exponential. It's quadratic, still a polynomial curve. And so on, and so forth. No amount of raising exponents will ever make a polynomial into an exponential function.

Only equations like y=23x, with x in the exponent, are called exponential equations and have exponential curves. Read the frigging definition.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

It's obviously not a curve if you don't use any variables.  :Small Sigh:

----------


## Tzardok

A straight line is also called a curve in mathematics, so you are again wrong. And as you apparantly can't find any other thing to be wrong about, maybe we should end this derail now, should we?

----------


## ShurikVch

In the ARPG Grim Dawn, it's possible - by lowering resistance to Bleed(ing) damage - to make Skeletons bleed (to their "death"  :Small Amused: )

I thought this kind on nonsense is impossible in tabletop D&D: Skeletons have no blood, and thus - should be immune to bleeding damage...
But, apparently, I thought wrong: nobody in the game is innately immune to bleeding damage (by "bleeding" there I mean not Con damage, but hp DoT)
Instead, (in)vulnerability to bleeding is (usually) written in the RAW for attacks which causing it...
And, of course, they missed several of instances:
*Spoiler: Bone Ooze*
Show




> Wounding (Ex): Because of the bone shards the creature's body contains, a bone oozes slam or engulf attack causes a wound that bleeds for 5 points of damage per round thereafter, in addition to the attack's normal damage. Multiple wounds from the creature result in cumulative bleeding loss (two wounds for 10 points of damage per round, and so on). The bleeding can be stopped only by a successful Heal check (DC 15) or the application of a cure spell or some other healing spell (heal, healing circle, or the like).



*Spoiler: Chain Golem*
Show




> Wounding (Ex): A wound resulting from a chain golem's chain rake attack bleeds for an additional 2 points of damage per round thereafter. Multiple wounds from such attacks result in cumulative bleeding loss (two wounds for 4 points of damage per round, and so on). The bleeding can be stopped only by a successful Heal check (DC 10) or the application of a cure spell or some other healing spell (heal, healing circle, or the like).



*Spoiler: Desmodu Guard Bat*
Show




> Wounding (Ex): A guard bat's saliva contains an anticoagulant that causes bite wounds the creature inflicts to bleed freely. A wound resulting from a guard bat's bite attack bleeds for an additional 1 point of damage per round thereafter. Multiple wounds from such attacks result in cumulative bleeding loss (two wounds for 2 points of damage per round, and so on).The bleeding can be stopped only by a successful Heal check (DC 15) or the application of a cure spell or some other healing spell (heal, healing circle, or the like).



*Spoiler: Fleshraker (Knife Fiend)*
Show




> Wounding Weapon (Su): Any slashing weapon wielded by a fleshraker can inflict terrible wounds that bleed profusely. In addition to the normal damage the weapon deals, the target takes 1 point of damage that round and each subsequent round from bleeding. Multiple wounds from a wounding weapon result in cumulative bleeding loss (two wounds for 2 points of damage per round, and so on). A successful Treat Injury check (DC 15) or the application of any cure spell stops the bleeding. The weapon does not retain this ability outside the grasp of a knife fiend, although any bleeding wounds it has inflicted continue to bleed if the fleshraker is disarmed.



*Spoiler: Master of Chains PrC*
Show




> Superior Spiked Chain: At 8th level, the master of chains can modify his spiked chain so that it leaves cruel barbs behind in the targets it strikes. Using the chain in this way causes victims to bleed 1 hit point per round until a successful Heal check is used to bind the wounds (DC 15) or until magical healing is applied to them. It costs 25 gp to modify a chain in this manner, and 10 gp to add new spikes once the modified chain has been used five times. (After five uses, the modified chain can be used as a normal spiked chain.) Only 8th level and above masters of chains can make and use these specially modified weapons properly - in anyone else's hands they are simply spiked chains.




As we can see, there are no restrictions for "living" targets, for targets vulnerable to critical hits or sneak attacks, for "normal anatomy", or for certain creature types.
Thus, in 3.X D&D, Skeletons (and Mummies, and Stone Golems, and Fire Elementals, etc) can bleed!..

Is it a dysfunction?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

When discussing scaling factors (often used in computational contexts to describe how the computational cost increases as you make the simulation/process/etc bigger), there are a few classes generally used (here _n_ is the scaling variable):

* Constant. O(1). No change with the parameter.
* Logarithmic O(log n). Slower than linear. Doubling the parameter value increases the output by less than a factor of 2.
* Linear O(n). Doubling the parameter value doubles the output.
* log-linear O(n log n). Between linear and power law.
* Power law O(nc). For c = 2, this is quadratic. Polynomial scaling is a special case where you have other terms with smaller factors, but in scaling terms those smaller factors are ignored.
* Exponential O(cn). Way bigger than power law. Generally, if you're here (or even have a value of c for power law >~ 2), you're in a bad spot. 
* Factorial/combinatorial O(n!). Really really really really really big.
* There are larger ones. But they rarely come up outside of pure math contexts. 

All of these are quite common in the real world--exponential growth and decay (mostly decay, since exponential growth gets limited by resources) are super common. Power law (and inverse power law where c < 0) are foundational--gravity and light are both inverse power law. Factorial scaling happens with statistics and thermodynamics and gambling.

While power law _does_ have exponents, no one in the scientific community would describe it as exponential scaling in a serious work.

----------


## Fiery Diamond

This arguing about "exponential" is sort of like someone saying "I have a theory about this" in casual conversation and somebody else going, "Um, akshully, you have a _hypothesis._  In science, [explanation of difference between hypothesis and theory]."  You do know that "exponential growth" or "exponential increase" are valid layman terms, too, not just mathematical ones?  See: Promethean's post giving a literal dictionary definition of exponential on the previous page of this thread.  Any curve that increases an an increasing rate is exponential by the non-mathematical definition, of which things like X-squared are some of the simplest and most often bandied about.  And just like telling someone they're using the word "theory" wrong when they aren't talking about science is out of line, so is insisting that exponential only refers to what mathematicians would call exponential curves.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This arguing about "exponential" is sort of like someone saying "I have a theory about this" in casual conversation and somebody else going, "Um, akshully, you have a _hypothesis._  In science, [explanation of difference between hypothesis and theory]."  You do know that "exponential growth" or "exponential increase" are valid layman terms, too, not just mathematical ones?  See: Promethean's post giving a literal dictionary definition of exponential on the previous page of this thread.  Any curve that increases an an increasing rate is exponential by the non-mathematical definition, of which things like X-squared are some of the simplest and most often bandied about.  And just like telling someone they're using the word "theory" wrong when they aren't talking about science is out of line, so is insisting that exponential only refers to what mathematicians would call exponential curves.


Look, I'm just here to make pedantic remarks about abstruse technical matters. And because I find factorial growth quite fascinating. And because I have no friends... Oh wait, that's reversing cause and effect.

----------


## Promethean

> In the ARPG Grim Dawn, it's possible - by lowering resistance to Bleed(ing) damage - to make Skeletons bleed (to their "death" )
> 
> I thought this kind on nonsense is impossible in tabletop D&D: Skeletons have no blood, and thus - should be immune to bleeding damage...
> But, apparently, I thought wrong: nobody in the game is innately immune to bleeding damage (by "bleeding" there I mean not Con damage, but hp DoT)
> Instead, (in)vulnerability to bleeding is (usually) written in the RAW for attacks which causing it...
> And, of course, they missed several of instances:
> 
> As we can see, there are no restrictions for "living" targets, for targets vulnerable to critical hits or sneak attacks, for "normal anatomy", or for certain creature types.
> Thus, in 3.X D&D, Skeletons (and Mummies, and Stone Golems, and Fire Elementals, etc) can bleed!..
> ...


Do skeletons still have bone marrow? Technically, that Is where blood comes from and is necessary for bone structure.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Do skeletons still have bone marrow? Technically, that Is where blood comes from and is necessary for bone structure.


"Where blood comes from" and "blood" are not at all the same thing.




> Reality is stranger than fiction.


An easily disprovable platitude. Imagine the strangest thing that is true. Now add to your mental image a monkey dressed as a celebrity. This imagined scenario is stranger than the strangest true thing, thus fiction is stranger than reality.

----------


## Fiery Diamond

> Look, I'm just here to make pedantic remarks about abstruse technical matters. And because I find factorial growth quite fascinating. And because I have no friends... Oh wait, that's reversing cause and effect.


 :Small Big Grin: 




> "Where blood comes from" and "blood" are not at all the same thing.
> 
> 
> An easily disprovable platitude. Imagine the strangest thing that is true. Now add to your mental image a monkey dressed as a celebrity. This imagined scenario is stranger than the strangest true thing, thus fiction is stranger than reality.


That's... not what that platitude means.  Or not what it's meant to mean, at any rate.  "Reality has things so strange that we wouldn't have been able to make them up just using our imaginations" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.  Nor does "Even if we can make up some really weird stuff, we can always find stuff even weirder in reality."  Now, one could argue that those statements are untrue, but they're a heck of a lot harder to disprove.

----------


## Promethean

> "Where blood comes from" and "blood" are not at all the same thing.


"Bleed" doesn't exclusively mean "Losing blood". A leaking hose in an auto line "bleeds" hydraulic fluid.

Skeletons having a fluid substance inside of them responsible for their structural integrity be capable of "Bleeding to death" without blood.




> An easily disprovable platitude. Imagine the strangest thing that is true. Now add to your mental image a monkey dressed as a celebrity. This imagined scenario is stranger than the strangest true thing, thus fiction is stranger than reality.


What if the monkey dressed as a celebrity makes the image Less strange? Then reality being stranger than fiction would be proven rather than disproven.

And you haven't addressed all the parts of reality you can't imagine because they're to large, complex, or weird for you to do so?

----------


## loky1109

> Reality is stranger than fiction.


It's false opposition. Fiction is a part of reality*. Of course full reality has more strange things inside it than its part.

* - Things that aren't part of reality don't exist.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> "Bleed" doesn't exclusively mean "Losing blood". A leaking hose in an auto line "bleeds" hydraulic fluid.
> 
> Skeletons having a fluid substance inside of them responsible for their structural integrity be capable of "Bleeding to death" without blood.


Bone marrow isn't a fluid, and it isn't responsible for the bones' structural integrity.





> What if the monkey dressed as a celebrity makes the image Less strange?


Then make some other change instead that would make the scene stranger.





> And you haven't addressed all the parts of reality you can't imagine because they're to large, complex, or weird for you to do so?


I haven't addressed them because they don't exist.

Okay, that's a bit arrogant. There may be parts that are too large, complex, or weird for me to imagine, but there's no part of reality that's beyond everyone's understanding.

----------


## Fiery Diamond

> I haven't addressed them because they don't exist.
> 
> Okay, that's a bit arrogant. There may be parts that are too large, complex, or weird for me to imagine, but there's no part of reality that's beyond everyone's understanding.


That's still hubris, right there.  If by "everyone" you mean "human" then yeah, there are absolutely things that are beyond human understanding.  The insistence that there aren't is absolutely hubris, and not based in truth.  Humans are not somehow perfect mental machines capable of comprehending anything and everything.  We, as a species, have limitations.

----------


## Promethean

> Bone marrow isn't a fluid, and it isn't responsible for the bones' structural integrity.


Bone marrow has a fluid portion and a more solid spongy-tissue portion. The fact that it isn't the sole and only thing responsible for bone structural integrity doesn't mean it isn't also a major contributor that would result in failure if lost.

Therefore, bones can still "Bleed" fluid and doing so can compromise their ability to hold a skeleton together.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> If by "everyone" you mean "human" then yeah, there are absolutely things that are beyond human understanding.


Such as what?

----------


## Promethean

> Such as what?


Large & small numbers.

I'm not being pedantic here, it's literally a major issuethat people can't comprehend numbers too large or too small to be immediately visible first hand.

People can do math and understand the abstract value of a number beyond a certain scale, but that's very different from actually understanding what it means in practice.

To avoid political examples: it's a major issue in storytelling, especially sci-fi, that writers can't grasp the effects that large numbers of [insert thing] will have on their setting without external tools. Likewise, readers have major issues with relating to events that effect beyond a certain scale.

For immediately obvious example: look at the sun or moon. People can innately judge the size of objects at distance do to how our brains judge things on a logarythmic scale. This however, is impossible for the sun and moon. They are too big and to far away for our brains to comprehend(which is why many ancient cultures thought the sky was a physical dome over flat land). Our brains literally run out of processing power before we can even Begin to grasp the scale of our tiny world.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Large & small numbers.
> 
> I'm not being pedantic here, it's literally a major issuethat people can't comprehend numbers too large or too small to be immediately visible first hand.
> 
> People can do math and understand the abstract value of a number beyond a certain scale, but that's very different from actually understanding what it means in practice.
> 
> To avoid political examples: it's a major issue in storytelling, especially sci-fi, that writers can't grasp the effects that large numbers of [insert thing] will have on their setting without external tools. Likewise, readers have major issues with relating to events that effect beyond a certain scale.
> 
> For immediately obvious example: look at the sun or moon. People can innately judge the size of objects at distance do to how our brains judge things on a logarythmic scale. This however, is impossible for the sun and moon. They are too big and to far away for our brains to comprehend(which is why many ancient cultures thought the sky was a physical dome over flat land). Our brains literally run out of processing power before we can even Begin to grasp the scale of our tiny world.


People may not be able to intuitively understand large or small numbers, but that doesn't mean we can't comprehend them. If no one could comprehend large numbers, how could anyone notice that these writers you mention failed to grasp the effects of the things on their setting? If we can't comprehend how far away the moon is, how did we manage to go there?

----------


## Promethean

> People may not be able to intuitively understand large or small numbers, but that doesn't mean we can't comprehend them. If no one could comprehend large numbers, how could anyone notice that these writers you mention failed to grasp the effects of the things on their setting? If we can't comprehend how far away the moon is, how did we manage to go there?


Those were calculated using external tools.

Being able to plug a function to map something isn't the same thing as fully comprehending it.

Full comprehension *Requires* mastery to the point of intuitive understanding.

----------


## Batcathat

> Those were calculated using external tools.
> 
> Being able to plug a function to map something isn't the same thing as fully comprehending it.
> 
> Full comprehension *Requires* mastery to the point of intuitive understanding.


Isn't that like saying humanity can't cross the Atlantic just because we can't swim across it? If we can arrive at an accurate answer, I would say we understand it, even if we occasionally require tools (at least as long as those tools aren't complete black boxes to humanity as a whole, I suppose). Yes, there's a difference between knowing something well enough to do intuitively and having to carefully work it out using tools, but saying something is beyond human understanding because humans require tools to process it seems like a stretch.

As for the larger question, I would say there's definitely things humanity doesn't understand, but unless I see proof (which I admit would be quite hard to produce) I wouldn't go so far as to say there are things humanity can't ever understand.

----------


## Tzardok

I think this disagreement is based on different definitions of comprehension. I may be wrong with that, of course.  :Small Red Face:

----------


## meschlum

> As for the larger question, I would say there's definitely things humanity doesn't understand, but unless I see proof (which I admit would be quite hard to produce) I wouldn't go so far as to say there are things humanity can't ever understand.


Godel gives you a proof of that, actually. Any sufficiently complex mathematical system (say, arithmetic, so not that complex) will include unprovable claims - which can be true, or false, and the math that ensues is entirely valid (and different) either way (see non euclidian geometry for the classic example).

Which gets you into infinite regress, because you will (provably) always be able to find unprovable claims even after you've patched things up and created two (or more) different mathematics that deal with the initial issue.

On the understanding part, you also have the argument from storage space - there is only so much data that can be stored in the brain (even if we're offloading a lot of it to Google), so there is a limit to what can be known (and orders of magnitude more things to be known, even if they're not interesting, than we can deal with - a precise count and composition review of sand on a beach is a starting point). Of course, you can use approximations to expand your reach (area and depth of the beach, sampled sand density and composition) but then you don't understand it as well as you could...

----------


## Batcathat

> Godel gives you a proof of that, actually. Any sufficiently complex mathematical system (say, arithmetic, so not that complex) will include unprovable claims - which can be true, or false, and the math that ensues is entirely valid (and different) either way (see non euclidian geometry for the classic example).


This might be a good point, I (somewhat ironically given my stance in the discussion) don't know enough mathematics to say for sure. Though from a layman's perspective, being able to say for certain that an unknown is also literally unknowable seems odd.




> On the understanding part, you also have the argument from storage space - there is only so much data that can be stored in the brain (even if we're offloading a lot of it to Google), so there is a limit to what can be known (and orders of magnitude more things to be known, even if they're not interesting, than we can deal with - a precise count and composition review of sand on a beach is a starting point). Of course, you can use approximations to expand your reach (area and depth of the beach, sampled sand density and composition) but then you don't understand it as well as you could...


So? The discussion isn't about whether a singular human can literally know everything, but whether there are things humanity as a whole cannot understand. So even if we account for combined storage space of every human brain, that's still not the limit since, as you point out, we can offload some of the knowledge onto other storage media and even if we account for the theoretical upper limit of all storage space that could be manufactured I'm still not sure what it proves, since that's just a limit on the amount of knowledge humanity can store at any given moment, not a limit on what we can or cannot understand.

----------


## Promethean

> So? The discussion isn't about whether a singular human can literally know everything, but whether there are things humanity as a whole cannot understand. So even if we account for combined storage space of every human brain, that's still not the limit since, as you point out, we can offload some of the knowledge onto other storage media and even if we account for the theoretical upper limit of all storage space that could be manufactured I'm still not sure what it proves, since that's just a limit on the amount of knowledge humanity can store at any given moment, not a limit on what we can or cannot understand.


Wasn't the argument about whether truth was stranger than fiction?

Fiction is written by a single or small group of individuals, not humanity as a whole.

My argument was that reality contains things too big, complex, or weird for any single or small group of human to comprehend, let alone make weirder. Therefore Truth is in fact stranger than any fiction.

----------


## Darkly

Pathfinder's Cost of Living.

Once somebody get's 1,000 gp, they should get a mansion and retire from adventuring. Why? Cuz' you get 25 gp worth of nonmagical items every 1d10 minutes just raiding your own home for nonmagical items. With 8 hours in a work-day, you can raid your home 96 times a day for 2,304 gp a day. The first of the month you lose 1,000 gp paying rent, leaving you with profits of 68,120 gp a month. 

In other words, with lvl 2 wealth, you can gain lvl 10 wealth in a month by searching under your couch for candlesticks and silverware, and that's before you start using magic to search for more hours a day!

----------


## St Fan

The Anagakok variant for Wizards found in _Dragon Magazine_ #344 has some interesting quirks.

Firstly, coming from a primitive or barbaric background, they are illiterate, just like Barbarians...
... except for magical writings, which they can decipher like all wizards, either with spellcraft or _read magic_.

Even better, they do use spellbooks to prepare spells, except those spellbooks are typically made of natural stuff like crude layers of bark. However, nowhere is it specified that adding new spells to their book cost any less for them than for standard wizards, meaning they must expends 100 gp by spell level to scribe a new spell. That's very expensive bark!

Personally, if I were to allow such a class in my campaign, I would throw away the spellbook and make all Anagakoks into Eidetic Spellcasters (even though they lack the familiar or scribe scroll class features normally required to obtain such an ACF). It would not only look less dumb, but I also feel it would be thematic for shaman-style arcanists to gain new powers by inhaling esoteric substances.

----------


## loky1109

> The Anagakok variant for Wizards found in _Dragon Magazine_ #344 has some interesting quirks.
> 
> Firstly, coming from a primitive or barbaric background, they are illiterate, just like Barbarians...
> ... except for magical writings, which they can decipher like all wizards, either with spellcraft or _read magic_.
> 
> Even better, they do use spellbooks to prepare spells, except those spellbooks are typically made of natural stuff like crude layers of bark. However, nowhere is it specified that adding new spells to their book cost any less for them than for standard wizards, meaning they must expands 100 gp by spell level to scribe a new spell. That's very expensive bark!
> 
> Personally, if I were to allow such a class in my campaign, I would throw away the spellbook and make all Anagakoks into Eidetic Spellcasters (even though they lack the familiar or scribe scroll normal class features normally required to obtain such an ACF). It would not only simplify things, but I also feel it would be thematic for shaman-style arcanists to gain new powers by inhaling esoteric substances.


Maybe they have comics spellbooks?

----------


## ShurikVch

Soulfused Construct template (_Magic of Incarnum_):



> *Size and Type:* A soulfused construct's type does not change, but it gains the living construct subtype (see Living Construct sidebar). Size is unchanged.


So, let's see the sidebar:



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct does not have low-light vision or darkvision.


Well, the "Sample Soulfused Construct" - Soulfused Flesh Golem (just one page earlier):



> *Special Qualities:* Damage reduction 5/adamantine, darkvision 60 ft., essentia pool 2, immunity to magic, living construct traits, low-light vision, soulbound resistance (2 essentia)


"Does not have...", eh?  :Small Amused: 

Besides that,



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as other living creatures do.


Let's compare it with the subtype description in the _Monster Manual V_:



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.


 :Small Confused:  What's that?
Did they just changed the rules for Living Constructs?
How it would affect Warforged?..

----------


## Darg

Maybe it's meant to be taken as setting specific?

----------


## loky1109

I think it's example of a bad copy-paste.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I think it's example of a bad copy-paste.


For part about a visual capabilities - it very may be

But for part about Constitution and hit points - not so much...

----------


## loky1109

> For part about a visual capabilities - it very may be
> 
> But for part about Constitution and hit points - not so much...


There are just missed nine words in the middle. All other the same. It could be single line or something like.

----------


## ShurikVch

> There are just missed nine words in the middle. All other the same. It could be single line or something like.


Not "just missed": while _Monster Manual III_ says you actually *get* extra hit points from your Constitution bonus (or lose - in case of Con penalty); _Magic of Incarnum_, in no-nonsense terms, informs us: "No, you do not!"

----------


## loky1109

> Not "just missed": while _Monster Manual III_ says you actually *get* extra hit points from your Constitution bonus (or lose - in case of Con penalty); _Magic of Incarnum_, in no-nonsense terms, informs us: "No, you do not!"


Look, I'll compare it word by word.




> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as other living creatures do.





> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.


Red is difference.

Now I just "miss" long red line from MM3:



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.


See?



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as other living creatures do.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Now I just "miss" long red line from MM3:
> 
> See?


I'm sorry for the confusion - I actually meant _Monster Manual V_:



> -Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.

----------


## loky1109

I anyway take it from your post.

----------


## ShurikVch

> I anyway take it from your post.


It's why I said I'm sorry - I quoted the wrong book, which caused the confusion...  :Small Sigh:

----------


## loky1109

> It's why I said I'm sorry - I quoted the wrong book, which caused the confusion...


Yeah, I'm confused, the quote is the same.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Yeah, I'm confused, the quote is the same.


I already edited it - go check the reply #515

----------


## Paragon

I just found one

Planar Shift doesn't have the "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesnt exceed your maximum load" clause that every other teleportation spell (or close) has. 
Meaning if you Plane Shift, you do it butt naked

----------


## Darg

> I just found one
> 
> Planar Shift doesn't have the "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesnt exceed your maximum load" clause that every other teleportation spell (or close) has. 
> Meaning if you Plane Shift, you do it butt naked


Yeah, and every teleport spell says you have to touch any object you want to teleport. Good luck trying to touch all the hundreds of items you want to bring with you, and enjoy touching your buddies' year long unwashed underwear.

----------


## sreservoir

> Yeah, and every teleport spell says you have to touch any object you want to teleport. Good luck trying to touch all the hundreds of items you want to bring with you, and enjoy touching your buddies' year long unwashed underwear.


Nah, your buddies generally get to bring anything they're carrying, you just target their creature. It's only what _you're_ carrying that doesn't come with you unless you're touching them.

----------


## Darg

> Nah, your buddies generally get to bring anything they're carrying, you just target their creature. It's only what _you're_ carrying that doesn't come with you unless you're touching them.


That's only in parentheticals that dont conflict with the target line which requires you to touch objects to bring. If they don't conflict, you don't have to assume that they would.

----------


## Vaern

> I just found one
> 
> Planar Shift doesn't have the "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesnt exceed your maximum load" clause that every other teleportation spell (or close) has. 
> Meaning if you Plane Shift, you do it butt naked


Gate's planar travel function is noted as working "much like a plane shift spell," but without a margin of error on the destination.  It makes no mention of carried gear or objects, either, so we can assume that its ability to transport stuff to other planes only functions to the same extent as plane shift.  Would this result in creatures dropping all of their gear as they stepped through the gate?

----------


## Promethean

> Gate's planar travel function is noted as working "much like a plane shift spell," but without a margin of error on the destination.  It makes no mention of carried gear or objects, either, so we can assume that its ability to transport stuff to other planes only functions to the same extent as plane shift.  Would this result in creatures dropping all of their gear as they stepped through the gate?


For comedic effect: the clothes hang in the air for a second, miming the action of their former wearer as if they're still being worn, only to fall to the floor the moment the creature on the other side of the portal realizes they're naked.

----------


## Darg

It should be noted that movement is a mechanic in the game and these teleportation spells specifically use the word "move" to describe how the spell works. Unless the spell contradicts the common understanding of what that entails, it shouldn't be understood to change how movement works. A creature that moves tends to take the items they carry with them unless something says they don't.

----------


## St Fan

> Gate's planar travel function is noted as working "much like a plane shift spell," but without a margin of error on the destination.  It makes no mention of carried gear or objects, either, so we can assume that its ability to transport stuff to other planes only functions to the same extent as plane shift.  Would this result in creatures dropping all of their gear as they stepped through the gate?


I've seen a couple of adventure modules with some teleportation gates doing exactly that as a kind of traps for adventurers, dispossessing them of their equipment just before sending them to a dangerous place.

Notably in the _Blood Sword_ series of gamebooks, if memory serve. It's not a very new idea; I've also heard that Gary Gygax's old _Tomb of Horrors_ did this a lot.

----------


## St Fan

A Spellthief can steal spells from him- or herself. Yeah, nothing in the rules prevent it, since that counts as a willing subject.

The funniest part? There are indeed some circumstances where it can be actually useful.

Especially since "A spellthief can cast [a stolen] spell even if he doesn't have the minimum ability score normally required to cast a spell of that level."

Now, imagine the high-level Wizard with a level of Spellthief and the Master Spellthief feat, who had fallen victim to enough _rays of stupidity_ or similar spells to not be able to cast arcane spells normally. She could, however, steal the spells from her own mind before casting them.

Of course, I'm not saying that a Wizard reduced to blithering idiot still able to throw powerful spells ain't a recipe for mishaps. The rest of the party better be drilled about the process (the Wizard being unlikely to remember it) and provide guidance at every step.

The scene just write itself:

*Wizard:* Oooooh... shiny!
*Rogue:* Yeah, yeah, it's shiny. Please focus. Now that you have extracted the spell from your own brain, you must target the enemy line... NO! Not that way! That's the rest of the party... who are diving undercover, the bastards. (Seriously, just 'cause I have Evasion, I'm always the one doing wizardsitting...) Okay, this way. No you aim the spell and...
*Wizard:* Big Badaboom?
*Rogue:* Yes, it's gonna do a big boom. But for the love of the goddesses, don't aim too short like last time; send it straight to the enemy line, not the ground, and... oooh, rats! FIRE IN THE HOLE!!

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> I just found one
> 
> Planar Shift doesn't have the "You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesnt exceed your maximum load" clause that every other teleportation spell (or close) has. 
> Meaning if you Plane Shift, you do it butt naked


Well, implementing that, and doing the same for teleport (maybe "you can take one item per hand, plus clothes", to fit the "you must touch the items") would be an interesting way to have a high-level campaign not make all distances completely irrelevant. Until Astral Projection, of course.

----------

