# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules

## ShurikVch

Welcome to the 10th (and, possibly, *the* last) thread about rules in 3.5 and Pathfinder that don't work.

Check the handbook to see if your dysfunction is already there, because we've covered many before.

Previous threads:

"Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection
"Wait Again, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly
Dysfunctional Rules IV: It's Like a Sandwich Made of RAW Failure!
Dysfunctional Rules Thread V: Dysfunctions All the Way Down
Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata
Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction
Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific
Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

*What this thread is for:*

Rules that clearly do something that is pointless or self-abnegating (EG Focused Lexicon is a feat that provides nothing but a penalty, no-one can use Chain Power, Hindering Opportunist helps your enemy).Rules that do something that is vastly contrary from anything that could possibly be the intended effect (Drown Healing, Greater Reversed Seek the Sky lasts forever, Reversed Mystic Rampart is meant to lower someone's saves but actually drops a tower on them).Rules that cause an non-resolvable game state (Peerless Archers can stack infinite attacks of opportunity)Rules that don't define something well enough to use it ("Distracted", "Minimum Caster Level", "Paladin spell", "Primary Ability Score", "Special Material", anything missing a range or other variables).Rules that, while they don't actually have a negative impact on the game as a game, do stop it making sense (EG fire and acid don't do fire and acid damage, you can fall 9 feet onto your head and take no damage, falling creatures deal no damage if they land on you).Two or more rules combine to cause an above problem (AC bonuses and bonus feats exist, but bonuses are only applicable to die rolls so no they don't).As a general rule, if you need to write a house rule for it.

*What this thread is not for*

Typos (Weapon deals 1d33 or 1d43 damage because 3 isn't superscript; "Share Lesser Form" mistyped as "Share Laser Form".)Dysfunctions that only arise because of a specific reading of the text (In combat, everyone is flat-footed until they act, so they must have been flat-footed whenever they weren't in combat, even though the text only specifies that they're flat-footed in combat. Someone who can't be flanked can't have a person on each side of them because if they did, they would be flanked.) Unless every possible reading of the text is dysfunctional no matter how you read it (even if it's dysfunctional in different ways).

----------


## ShurikVch

> *Faceless Hate:* When a victim of this disease takes enough Strength or Constitution damage to reduce the ability score to 0, the infection disappears. The characte's ability scores are immediately restored to what they were before the onset of the disease, but he becomes a monster with no face. The character loses his ability to see (and scent, if he has that ability), but gains blindsight with a range of 60 feet. He loses the ability to speak, but gains the Silent Spell feat if a spellcaster. The victim's alignment changes to neutral evil, and he becomes intent on killing all those who were his friends and family. When the victim has hunted down everyone dear to him, he turns his ire against all other living things. These changes are permanent, and remove disease has no effect. A _wish_ or _miracle_ spell restores the character, but nothing else will. If the victim dies and a _remove disease_ spell is then cast on the corpse, a _resurrection_ or _true resurrection_ spell restores the character to life and to his original form. _Raise dead_ won't work.


Firstly, I mused about how Cancer Mage - with their Disease Host class feature -



> a cancer mage suffers no ill effects of diseases, except for purely cosmetic ones such as boils, pockmarks, watery eyes, blackened skin, hair loss, foul smell, and so on


- would "suffers no ill effects" from the loss of their face, and thus - would be able to see without eyes, smell without a nose, drink potions without a mouth...
But then it dawned to me:
-No mouth!
-No nose!!!
How the heck they are supposed to eat, drink, or breath?!!
Thus, unless they either have Iridescent Spindle, or specific anatomy (gills or blowhole) - they should be dead in a couple of hours top (excluding possible excessive Con optimization, persisted _Deep Breath_ or _Veil of Undeath_)
Those who have some of aforementioned, would still perish in a few days unless they have access to ring of sustenance, psionic sustenance, Elans' Repletion, or Elemental type

----------


## bekeleven

Here's one that I think many of us know, but hasn't been brought up in one of these threads to my knowledge: Spellblades.

Spellblades have a 4-sentence description and still manage to include text that can be read as contradicting itself. (I think designer intent is clear but I've been in this argument plenty of times.) To quote:




> *The wielder of a spellblade weapon is immune to a single spell* chosen at the time the weapon is created. [...] *When the wielder is next subjected* to the chosen spell, the weapon absorbs it.


The issue here, of course, being the word "next," which makes it sound like the spellblade only works once. I don't read it like that, and if you assume that's the case it leads to some weirdness on its own, like an "expired" spellblade still technically being worth 6000 extra GP.

Whereas my assumed reading, where it works every time? That leads to even sillier consequences. So even after you decide which part of the ability description is wrong, you're _still_ making houserules.

----------


## Jervis

Not sure if this has been mentioned in one of these threads before, but the -2 sword being awesome will always be a favorite of mine. 




> After one week in a characters possession, the sword always forces that character to employ it rather than another weapon.* The swords owner automatically draws it and fights with it even when she meant to draw or ready some other weapon. The sword can be gotten rid of only by means of limited wish, wish, or miracle.*


So we have a weapon that automatically teleports to your hand from other planes of existence and can survive being used against an Umbral Blot. Even Disjunction cant get rid of it because of the specifics of the weapon. Getting it Sundered would be getting rid of it, disintegration would be getting rid of it, loosing it on another plane of existence would be getting rid of it. And because it forces you to use it then it basically has to just teleport to your hand when you draw a weapon. Sure you get -2 to attack rolls but thats manageable

----------


## loky1109

Cheapest iaijutsu focus full attack! Quiver with one arrow and -2 sword. )

----------


## Jervis

> Cheapest iaijutsu focus full attack! Quiver with one arrow and -2 sword. )


That wow how have I never though of that.

----------


## Jervis

Oh and on the topic of cursed items, a cursed wand of bestow curse that reverses a the effect of the spell is probably broken for giving a untyped +6 to ability scores and +4 to attack rolls

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Oh and on the topic of cursed items, a cursed wand of bestow curse that reverses a the effect of the spell is probably broken for giving a untyped +6 to ability scores and +4 to attack rolls


I think this falls under the category of "dysfunctions that only arise because of a specific reading of the text".

----------


## Jervis

> I think this falls under the category of "dysfunctions that only arise because of a specific reading of the text".


That is fair. Though the reverse effect cursed item property can lead to a lot of stupidity with wands. Though most of it comes into the realm of theoretical optimization since we dont have concrete rules for what most of them would do. 

A friend of mine also used cursed item crafting rules to make a bunch of ammo with the curse effect to Polymorph you with a instantaneous duration and essentially rouletted roll his body until he got something interesting. The guy made a spreadsheet of every published monster and used that to math out how long it would take statistically to roll a dragon. Im sure theres more nonsense with cursed item rules that can make them unintentionally awesome but the -2 sword is still my favorite just because optimizing away the -2 penalty just makes it an awesome sword and probably best candidate for a item familiar.

----------


## MornShine

With Berserker Strength and Ettercap Berserker, whenever Brianna the Barbarian is in a particular range of hp, she ends up in an infinite rage/unrage loop-- low HP triggers Berserker Strength, which grants +6 con due to Ettercap Berserker, raising her HP high enough to deactivate Berserker Strength, causing her to lose the +6 con and fall below the threshold for Berserker Strength, causing Berserker Strength to activate, and so on and so on.

Because Berserker Strength is instantaneous, Brianna is constantly in a paradoxical cycle of rage.

Unfortunately, all the fun things that trigger when a Barbarian enters rage are Pathfinder material, not 3.5 material (AFAIK).

Also, for Cursed Sword shenanigans, I recommend using a shuriken-- it's its own ammunition, and unambiguously a "weapon".

----------


## Jervis

> With Berserker Strength and Ettercap Berserker, whenever Brianna the Barbarian is in a particular range of hp, she ends up in an infinite rage/unrage loop-- low HP triggers Berserker Strength, which grants +6 con due to Ettercap Berserker, raising her HP high enough to deactivate Berserker Strength, causing her to lose the +6 con and fall below the threshold for Berserker Strength, causing Berserker Strength to activate, and so on and so on.
> 
> Because Berserker Strength is instantaneous, Brianna is constantly in a paradoxical cycle of rage.
> 
> Unfortunately, all the fun things that trigger when a Barbarian enters rage are Pathfinder material, not 3.5 material (AFAIK).
> 
> Also, for Cursed Sword shenanigans, I recommend using a shuriken-- it's its own ammunition, and unambiguously a "weapon".


I love infinite loops like this. I vaguely remember someone using a rage related item or feat to generate extra HP (not just con related hp gain) when they use it or something but I cant remember. 

May I ask why you would use a Shuriken though? I suppose it lets you skip the quick draw feat tax so thats a plus. Actually now that I think of it its only 1 damage less than a dagger so thats pretty good, though im not sure you could apply Iaijutsu focus too it since it lacks the melee property. I kinda want to make a build for this now

Edit: I realized now that you meant pulling out shuriken as a way to draw the sword, im stupid

----------


## Jervis

Something I was surprised not to see on the handbook. Players guide to Fearune lets you take regional feats you would otherwise not qualify for if you take 2 ranks in Knowledge Local at level 1. This lets you, among other things, take Jotunbrud on a non-human. 

This does a lot of silly things but my favorites are letting you be a Kobold that counts as 3 different size categories when it would be beneficial, allowing you to be a small tiny at large, and letting you grapple a Goliath. And my favorite is that it arguably lets a small or smaller creature use swallow whole on a creature thats a larger size category than it.

Oh, and if Dragon Mag is allowed then Eagle Stones are basically potions of true resurrection with half the cost.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Something I was surprised not to see on the handbook. Players guide to Fearune lets you take regional feats you would otherwise not qualify for if you take 2 ranks in Knowledge Local at level 1. This lets you, among other things, take Jotunbrud on a non-human.


That's incorrect: _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting_ allowed it; no such permission in the _Player's Guide to Faerûn_...




> This does a lot of silly things but my favorites are letting you be a Kobold that counts as 3 different size categories when it would be beneficial, allowing you to be a small tiny at large, and letting you grapple a Goliath.


It's arguable: according to the *Anthrowhale*,



> Powerful build applies for grapple checks (giving a +4 bonus) but not for qualification to grapple (which is not an opposed check).


Obviously, the same thing could be said about the Jotunbrud feat...




> And my favorite is that it arguably lets a small or smaller creature use swallow whole on a creature thats a larger size category than it.


That's questionable - not just because of Grapple size limitations, but because you don't lose your feat-granted benefits while being magically reduced in size - would it be RAW for creature under the _Minute Form_ effect to swallow something Tiny-, Small-, or even Medium-sized?
The similar, but closer to RAW case is - some monsters have Swallow Whole which lists exact sizes which it can swallow - such as Legendary Shark:



> A legendary shark can swallow a Large or smaller creature

----------


## Jervis

> That's incorrect: _Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting_ allowed it; no such permission in the _Player's Guide to Faerûn_...
> 
> 
> It's arguable: according to the *Anthrowhale*,
> 
> Obviously, the same thing could be said about the Jotunbrud feat...
> 
> 
> That's questionable - not just because of Grapple size limitations, but because you don't lose your feat-granted benefits while being magically reduced in size - would it be RAW for creature under the _Minute Form_ effect to swallow something Tiny-, Small-, or even Medium-sized?
> The similar, but closer to RAW case is - some monsters have Swallow Whole which lists exact sizes which it can swallow - such as Legendary Shark:


Ah right, I mixed my Fearun books up. As for grappling itself, Ive seen it argued both ways. One where you automatically fail the check if the size categories dont mesh up and one where you cant make the check at all if the sizes dont mesh up. As for Swallow Whole I remembered it existing as feat it some book though I may be mistaken. 

Regardless I think the counting as 3 size categories alone is funny enough to mention.

----------


## ShurikVch

> As for Swallow Whole I remembered it existing as feat it some book though I may be mistaken.


Snatch and Swallow (_Draconomicon_) - but you need to be a Huge Dragon to qualify for it




> Regardless I think the counting as 3 size categories alone is funny enough to mention.


True.
Another - less RAW-questionable - way to do it is Kobold with Half-Ogre template and Hulking Brute feat: count as Medium - because, indeed, Medium, Small - because of Slight Build, and Large - because of Hulking Brute; can add in Deformity (tall) to be even more "Large" (just for fluff; but +5' reach is nice - even with penalties)

----------


## St Fan

Not a big one, but still made me blink:





> *Light of Faith*
> Abjuration [Good]
> *Level:* Cleric 2
> [...]
> 
> This spell grants you a sacred (if you are good or neutral) or profane (if you are evil) bonus equal to one-half your divine caster level (maximum +5) on your next turning check.


This spell has the Good descriptor. Thus no evil Cleric can cast it. Thus there is no way to gain a profane bonus with it, despite what it says.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Not a big one, but still made me blink:
> 
> This spell has the Good descriptor. Thus no evil Cleric can cast it. Thus there is no way to gain a profane bonus with it, despite what it says.


Archivist?
Chameleon?
UMD?

----------


## loky1109

> This spell has the Good descriptor. Thus no evil Cleric can cast it. Thus there is no way to gain a profane bonus with it, despite what it says.


Good cleric with Evil subtype?

----------


## St Fan

> Archivist?
> Chameleon?
> UMD?





> Good cleric with Evil subtype?


Of course it is _possible_, there are always ways to get around limitations. But that just show how much proofreading was going on when a good spell can give a profane bonus.

----------


## loky1109

> Of course it is _possible_, there are always ways to get around limitations. But that just show how much proofreading was going on when a good spell can give a profane bonus.


I think it's better than Evil cleric with spell gives sacred bonus.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

The spell Crown of Glory, in its first iteration in BoED, had M/DF in its component line, requiring a costly component, with a pretty precise description of how it is used, only if it was cast as an arcane spell. However, the spell only appears on two specific cleric domains, and on no other spell list, which, barring Arcane Disciple, Planar Touchstone or domain draught (which are options which didn't even exist at the time), means that almost half of the spell's text had absolutely no effect.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The spell Crown of Glory, in its first iteration in BoED, had M/DF in its component line, requiring a costly component, with a pretty precise description of how it is used, only if it was cast as an arcane spell. However, the spell only appears on two specific cleric domains, and on no other spell list, which, barring Arcane Disciple, Planar Touchstone or domain draught (which are options which didn't even exist at the time), means that almost half of the spell's text had absolutely no effect.


Geomancer and Spell Versatility? It's still odd to cast it as arcane spell - but, at the very least, it was technically possible to do it back then...

----------


## Bucky

> Spellblades have a 4-sentence description and still manage to include text that can be read as contradicting itself. (I think designer intent is clear but I've been in this argument plenty of times.) To quote:


The RAW looks like the spellblade will outright nullify the first e.g. fireball, preventing it from having any effect on anything. Each subsequent time, the wielder is immune to the fireball but it still damages anyone else in the area.
----
Pathfinder has rules for siege towers. It describes them as having a bottom section for pushing the tower and a roof section as a fighting position. The siege towers supposedly help scale adjacent walls. But the dysfunction is that the written description notably lacks any built-in features like stairs, trapdoors or ladders, or any way to get people into the roof section that's easier than simply climbing the wall.

----------


## Laughing Dog

> The spell Crown of Glory, in its first iteration in BoED, had M/DF in its component line, requiring a costly component, with a pretty precise description of how it is used, only if it was cast as an arcane spell. However, the spell only appears on two specific cleric domains, and on no other spell list, which, barring Arcane Disciple, Planar Touchstone or domain draught (which are options which didn't even exist at the time), means that almost half of the spell's text had absolutely no effect.


Nitpick:  Crown of Glory's first iteration was in Defenders of Faith, which BoED even states in the spell description.  Also, back then it only appeared on one specific cleric prestige domain (fittingly enough, the Glory domain.)
EDIT:


> If a noncleric enters a prestige class that allows access
> to a prestige domain, the character generally does gain
> access to the domain. She can use the granted power
> bestowed by the domain normally. If she is a divine
> spellcaster (a paladin, ranger, or druid), each day she can
> cast one extra spell of each spell level to which she
> normally has access, which must be the spell from the
> prestige domain for that level. If she is an arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, or bard), the domain spells are
> added to her spells knownscribed in a wizards spellbook, or added to a sorcerer or bards list of known spells,
> in addition to the characters normal number


Not a dysfunction after all.

----------


## Dimers

Stormwrack's _dark tide_ spell has issues.  First, there's the already known type of dysfunction that its area can be considerably larger than its range.  Area and range are matched at CL 56 if you center the spell on yourself.  Second, well ... It's a Necromancy spell, so what the designers probably intended was changing *existing* water with negative energy.  But that's not what they wrote.  Instead, they describe what's clearly a Conjuration effect that *creates* a mile-wide sphere of water. (Rough sphere, depending on obstacles -- the area is a spread.)  The text says "creating a tide of blackwater that spreads out ... until it fills the entire area."

Even constrained by the spell's Long range, that's a lot of BFC, and it's hard for casters to overcome because if you're casting with V components then you're not holding your breath.  It's also a lot of drowning death when used against mundane cities or armies.  Or death by pressure and hypothermia from the normal rules for deep and cold water, take your pick.

So, eh, it's a weak dysfunction, just "this spell is in the wrong school".  I mostly wanted to highlight another piece of unintended RAW silliness.

----------


## Dimers

The Savage Species spell _earth reaver_ says "Those that fail the saving throw are knocked prone."  It has no save.

----------


## Biggus

> Instead, they describe what's clearly a Conjuration effect that *creates* a mile-wide sphere of water. (Rough sphere, depending on obstacles -- the area is a spread.)  The text says "creating a tide of blackwater that spreads out ... until it fills the entire area."


It says it creates a tide. A tide is a movement, not a substance.

----------


## ShurikVch

Don't know if it belongs there, but _Arms and Equipment Guide_ is peppered with mentions of 2E spells which either don't exist in 3E, or, at the very least, don't have the same name.
So far I noticed:
Closing Blade required _Free Action_ spell
_Death Spell_ is a requirement for Balor's Sword of Flame, Balor's Sword of Soul Stealing, and Sword of the Solars

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> Don't know if it belongs there, but _Arms and Equipment Guide_ is peppered with mentions of 2E spells which either don't exist in 3E, or, at the very least, don't have the same name.
> So far I noticed:
> Closing Blade required _Free Action_ spell
> _Death Spell_ is a requirement for Balor's Sword of Flame, Balor's Sword of Soul Stealing, and Sword of the Solars


I. Cast. _Death_.

----------


## Telonius

> Archivist?
> Chameleon?
> UMD?


Evil cleric of a Neutral deity?

----------


## Bucky

Let's talk about hugging fire elementals in 3.5.

If you hit a fire elemental with an unarmed attack, you need to save against being set on fire.
If a fire elemental hits you with its natural weapon, you need to save against being set on fire.
If a fire elemental _grapples_ you, that isn't its natural weapon so there is no risk of being set on fire.
If you have been grappled by a fire elemental while unarmed, you can attempt opposed grapple checks to do many things. These aren't attacks, not even the one that does the damage of an unarmed strike, so they won't set you on fire.
Similarly, the fire elemental's own grapple checks won't set you on fire.

In short, hugging or wrestling with fire elementals is unreasonably safe.

----------


## Jack_Simth

> Firstly, I mused about how Cancer Mage - with their Disease Host class feature -
> 
> - would "suffers no ill effects" from the loss of their face, and thus - would be able to see without eyes, smell without a nose, drink potions without a mouth...
> But then it dawned to me:
> -No mouth!
> -No nose!!!
> How the heck they are supposed to eat, drink, or breath?!!
> Thus, unless they either have Iridescent Spindle, or specific anatomy (gills or blowhole) - they should be dead in a couple of hours top (excluding possible excessive Con optimization, persisted _Deep Breath_ or _Veil of Undeath_)
> Those who have some of aforementioned, would still perish in a few days unless they have access to ring of sustenance, psionic sustenance, Elans' Repletion, Elemental or Outsider type


The cancer mage doesn't suffer the ability damage, so never loses face.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Let's talk about hugging fire elementals in 3.5.
> 
> If you hit a fire elemental with an unarmed attack, you need to save against being set on fire.
> If a fire elemental hits you with its natural weapon, you need to save against being set on fire.
> If a fire elemental _grapples_ you, that isn't its natural weapon so there is no risk of being set on fire.
> If you have been grappled by a fire elemental while unarmed, you can attempt opposed grapple checks to do many things. These aren't attacks, not even the one that does the damage of an unarmed strike, so they won't set you on fire.
> Similarly, the fire elemental's own grapple checks won't set you on fire.
> 
> In short, hugging or wrestling with fire elementals is unreasonably safe.


Grapple is defined as Special Attack. Thus, the fire elemental works as it should work by common sense. No dysfunction here imho.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Grapple is defined as Special Attack. Thus, the fire elemental works as it should work by common sense. No dysfunction here imho.


Unfortunately, this doesn't actually resolve the dysfunction. The fire elemental's burn ability only says that the elemental's slam attack deals fire damage and sets people on fire. Other attacks don't do so.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Unfortunately, this doesn't actually resolve the dysfunction. The fire elemental's burn ability only says that the elemental's slam attack deals fire damage and sets people on fire. Other attacks don't do so.





> *Burn (Ex)*
> 
> A fire elementals slam attack deals bludgeoning damage plus fire damage from the elementals flaming body. Those hit by a fire elementals slam attack also must succeed on a Reflex save or catch on fire. The flame burns for 1d4 rounds. The save DC varies with the elementals size (see table). A burning creature can take a move action to put out the flame. The save DC is Constitution-based.
> 
> *Creatures hitting a fire elemental with* natural weapons or *unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the elementals attack, and also catch on fire* unless they succeed on a Reflex save.


"Unarmed Attacks" doesn't sole apply to "Unarmed Strikes" but also to "Grapple".

Unarmed Attacks != Unarmed Strike

Unarmed Attacks = Unarmed Strike; Grapple;...

edit: and while the elemental does not burn an enemy for "grappling" it itself, it will use its slam attack, thus still apply his burn ability.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The cancer mage doesn't suffer the ability damage, so never loses face.


Not exactly: while disease is usually harmless for them, once something damage their Str to 0 - disease would act and they would lose the face...

----------


## InvisibleBison

> "Unarmed Attacks" doesn't sole apply to "Unarmed Strikes" but also to "Grapple".
> 
> Unarmed Attacks != Unarmed Strike
> 
> Unarmed Attacks = Unarmed Strike; Grapple;...
> 
> edit: and while the elemental does not burn an enemy for "grappling" it itself, it will use its slam attack, thus still apply his burn ability.


That creates a new dysfunction without resolving the actual original dysfunction. The new dysfunction is that you take fire damage if you grapple the elemental, but not if it grapples you. And it still doesn't resolve the fact that physical contact with a fire elemental by default does not deal damage. Perhaps the specific example that was cited as evidence of the dysfunction may not be correct, but there are plenty of other cases where it still shows up.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> That creates a new dysfunction without resolving the actual original dysfunction. The new dysfunction is that you take fire damage if you grapple the elemental, but not if it grapples you. And it still doesn't resolve the fact that physical contact with a fire elemental by default does not deal damage. Perhaps the specific example that was cited as evidence of the dysfunction may not be correct, but there are plenty of other cases where it still shows up.


Why would that be a dysfunction?
I don't see any contradicting rule situation.

"Just because "magical fire" doesn't act like "normal fire" doesn't make it dysfunctional, that is the norm in 3.5

Sure; I get how you feel about this. But you should also keep in mind that especially monster abilities are often tailored towards a specific CR. And in the case of the Fire Elemental, the ability has to be in a similar CR range as the abilities the other elementals with the same CR get. 
Maybe that is the intended reasoning behind it, who knows. (That giving the fire elemental a touchattack + fireshield ability would have been to strong).
But what I know is, that by RAW I see no dysfunction. The sole thing broke here is our "imagination of real life fire", but dunno if that should be the measuring tool here.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> Why would that be a dysfunction?
> I don't see any contradicting rule situation.
> 
> "Just because "magical fire" doesn't act like "normal fire" doesn't make it dysfunctional, that is the norm in 3.5


Where does it say that fire elementals are made of "magical fire"?

Also, you should probably go re-read the opening post, because "dysfunction" does not mean "contradicting rules situation". It seems to me that "fire elementals are made of fire that only sometimes burns things" is a perfect example of




> Rules that, while they don't actually have a negative impact on the game as a game, do stop it making sense (EG fire and acid don't do fire and acid damage, you can fall 9 feet onto your head and take no damage, falling creatures deal no damage if they land on you).

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Where does it say that fire elementals are made of "magical fire"?
> 
> Also, you should probably go re-read the opening post, because "dysfunction" does not mean "contradicting rules situation". It seems to me that "fire elementals are made of fire that only sometimes burns things" is a perfect example of


If that is your interpretation/definition of "dysfunctional", heck easily 50%+ of the spells and abilities are dysfunctional.

- Burning Hands? Your hands are on fire and you take no damage. Dysfunctional
- Flame Blade? You are holding a sword made of fire... also dysfunctional...
- why do form changing abilities only heal when you turn into something else and not also when you turn back? dysfunctional


Sorry but no. If you look at everything on a binary black or white basis, the logic behind this thread falls apart for me. You have to take the supernatural and magical aspects of 3.5 into your common sense logic, or almost anything becomes dysfunctional.

----------


## loky1109

> You have to take the supernatural and magical aspects of 3.5 into your common sense logic, or almost anything becomes dysfunctional.


With that in mind, not burning fire elemental still is dysfunctional.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> With that in mind, not burning fire elemental still is dysfunctional.


As said, if that is the assumption here, most spells that don't harm the user/caster are dysfunctional. (like in the examples provided).

Same goes for things like First of Energy (Enlightened Fist) or Sacred Flames (Sacred Fist). Wrapping your hands (and feet) in energy/fire that doesn't harm you is also dysfunctional.

Flying/levitation is dysfuntional because of gravity, is this where we will end?

And where does the endless fuel come to keep the fire elemental's fire burning?

An elemental itself is dysfunctional according to that. What does the element keep in shape to form the elemental?

Sorry, but real life physics barely apply to 3.5 and shouldn't be taken as measurement if something is "functional" or "dysfunctional" imho.

It's one thing if something is "dysfunctional" (rules can't produce reliable results) or if it breaks "real life physics" (rules don't always work as in real life). The latter statement is one of the elementary things 3.5 is based on. Supernatural, magical or exceptional abilities that break real life physics.

----------


## loky1109

> As said, if that is the assumption here, most spells that don't harm the user/caster are dysfunctional. (like in the examples provided).


Wrong. Spells are products created with purpose. They designed not to harm spellcaster. Fire elemental is opposite thing.

This isn't "real life physics" this is common sense.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Wrong. Spells are products created with purpose. They designed not to harm spellcaster. Fire elemental is opposite thing.
> 
> This isn't "real life physics" this is common sense.


Common sense in 3.5 is that often (not always) the user has some control over his abilities to not harm himself or his allies.

This is also true for the Fire Elemental's Burn ability. It has full control when grappling if it wants to burn his target with an Slam attack, or do a non Slam action and not burn his target (e.g. to grapple an ally for some reason).

Further if anyone uses any kind of grappling action against the fire elemental, they take damage.

For me, this is working as intended if I look at other "fire abilities" that work similar.

Just because the Fire Elemental has control over his Burn ability (since its tied to his Slam attack) in grapple doesn't make it dysfunctional imho.

Do you really think that F. Elementals should "double burn" their foes in a grapple? 
Once for the initial grapple and then again for the Slam attack? Is that you expectation of normal here?

----------


## loky1109

> This is also true for the Fire Elemental's Burn ability. It has full control when grappling if it wants to burn his target with an Slam attack, or do a non Slam action and not burn his target (e.g. to grapple an ally for some reason).


First, I don't agree with "elemental's full control". I can control myself, but I can't became liquid.




> Further if anyone uses any kind of grappling action against the fire elemental, they take damage.


RAW, no.




> Just because the Fire Elemental has control over his Burn ability (since its tied to his Slam attack) in grapple doesn't make it dysfunctional imho.


"Tied to Slam attack" isn't "having control". It literally opposite.




> Do you really think that F. Elementals should "double burn" their foes in a grapple? 
> Once for the initial grapple and then again for the Slam attack? Is that you expectation of normal here?


It looks normal. Better than harmless hugs. RAW I can pin elemental for long long time and get no damage.

----------


## ShurikVch

> The cancer mage doesn't suffer the ability damage, so never loses face.


Even if it would be correct for Cancer Mage - it still leaves everybody else...

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> First, I don't agree with "elemental's full control". I can control myself, but I can't became liquid.


"You" can control if you want to make an (unarmed strike) attack or to not make an attack.
The Fire Elemental can control/chose to use its Slam attack or not.
The Fire Elemental doesn't have a "touch attack" ability + fire shield. It has a Slam attack with a burn effect, that also works as kind of fire-shield against enemy attacks.




> RAW, no.


Would you be so nice to provide an argument?
I can repeat mine:



> Creatures *hitting* a fire elemental with *natural weapons* or *unarmed attacks* take fire damage as though hit by the elementals attack, and also catch on fire unless they succeed on a Reflex save.


"Hitting": Doesn't require to apply damage. You just need to "hit" with your "attack". So even hitting with a non-damaging touch spell/attack counts here.

"Unarmed Attack": the "Grapple" action is a Special "Attack" that is also made unarmed.

As such the following grapple actions cause you to "Burn" when you attack & hit a Fire Elemental:



> Step 2: Grab. You make a melee touch *attack* to grab the target. If you fail to *hit the target*, the grapple attempt fails. If you succeed, proceed to Step 3.


As you can see, the you start a grapple and "Grab (step2)" a Fire Elemental and "hit", you get burned.




> Attack Your Opponent: You can make an *attack* with an *unarmed strike, natural weapon*, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a 4 penalty on such attacks.
> You cant attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons


You also get burned if you try to attack the F. Elemental while being a grapple.





> "Tied to Slam attack" isn't "having control". It literally opposite.


The F. Elemental can chose to grapple an ally without burning him instantly with his Burn ability, since that is tied to the Slam attack. I meant that as control here.




> It looks normal. Better than harmless hugs. RAW I can pin elemental for long long time and get no damage.


You get burned when you "Grab" the fire elemental. And on the Fire Elemental's turn (same round) it can still use its Slam attack to "Burn" you. 
Sure it can try to escape the "pin" which would leave you for that turn unharmed. But that fits my imagination. The F. Elemental is winding in the pin and tries to break free of the pin. It can chose to "Slam" and "Burn" or try to escape the "Pin".

----------


## loky1109

F. elemental's body literally is fire. All body, not just his fists.
Attempt to start grapple burn you, yes, grapple itself don't (I don't have attack elemental, I can do damage via grapple check). Don't you see issue? Grabbing big humanoid shaped piece of fire is harmless. Striking this piece of fire isn't. Touching isn't, too.

And if elemental is pinned, he can't try to strike me, escape grapple is only thing he can try. Pinning elemental is harmless completely.

"The Fire Elemental doesn't have a "touch attack" ability + fire shield."
It should. Something like oozes' acid. This is disfunction.

----------


## Bucky

> You also get burned if you try to attack the F. Elemental while being a grapple.


...but not if you succeed at a grapple check to damage the elemental! That's "equivalent to an unarmed strike", but you don't check for a hit with the strike and thus, dysfunctionally, can't be set on fire.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> F. elemental's body literally is fire. All body, not just his fists.
> Attempt to start grapple burn you, yes, grapple itself don't (I don't have attack elemental, I can do damage via grapple check). Don't you see issue? Grabbing big humanoid shaped piece of fire is harmless. Striking this piece of fire isn't. Touching isn't, too.
> 
> And if elemental is pinned, he can't try to strike me, escape grapple is only thing he can try. Pinning elemental is harmless completely.
> 
> "The Fire Elemental doesn't have a "touch attack" ability + fire shield."
> It should. Something like oozes' acid. This is disfunction.


&



> ...but not if you succeed at a grapple check to damage the elemental! That's "equivalent to an unarmed strike", but you don't check for a hit with the strike and thus, dysfunctionally, can't be set on fire.


You both are falling trap to the "6 second round" vs "your 6 second turn" imagination. 

In the chase that the grapple already started and you did chose not to escape the Fire Elemental's grapple.

1.) You are already taking damage in "this round" from a possible Slam attack
2.) If you just use non-hitting grapple action, you don't hit or make more contact than you already are.
3.) If you attempt to "hit" your enemy with your "grapple action", you take more damage, since you use brute force tactics instead of being smart.

I mean how often should a foe take Burn damage per "round" in grapple? If I follow your arguments I suppose something like up to 4 times?

a) when the F. elemental starts/holds the grapple
b) when the F. Elemental uses its Slam while grappling
c) when you start/hold the grapple (doesn't immediately try to escape)
d) when you attack the elemental unarmed or with natural weapons while grappling

(PS: those options I don't believe in are in RED)

So instead of 1-2 times Burn damage "per round" (my interpretation), you wanna have up to 4 times Burn damage so that it fits your imagination of real life fire. Because somehow you are able to count "*how many times real life fire does damage to you.*" Sorry that I have a hard time believing that you are able to count the amounts of times you take fire damage during 6 seconds. Because that would be the "position" your argument is taking in here.

Is that really your intention here? Does the F. Elemental not enough times Burn dmg per round (in "my interpretation") to satisfy your feeling for realism of fire?

----------


## loky1109

> 1.) You are already taking damage in "this round" from a possible Slam attack


What if elemental missed? Or didn't use slam attack? Harmless hugs with fire?




> I mean how often should a foe take Burn damage per "round" in grapple? If I follow your arguments I suppose something like up to 4 times?


Don't look at up to, let look at from. From zero times. 




> So instead of 1-2 times Burn damage "per round" (my interpretation), you wanna have up to 4 times Burn damage so that it fits your imagination of real life fire. Because somehow you are able to count "how many times real life fire does damage to you."


No. I want something instead of nothing which is possible.




> b) when the F. Elemental uses its Slam while grappling


*If* he used it and *if* he hits.




> d) when you attack the elemental unarmed or with natural weapons while grappling


*If* you do this. You most likely don't.




> c) when you start/hold the grapple (doesn't immediately try to escape)


I don't need to start grapple every round, so this isn't "per round" option, it's once. Hold is out of discussion because it isn't (while should).

So I want 1-2 times Burn instead 0-1 per round. Or 1 instead 0 if I pin elemental.




> Because somehow you are able to count "*how many times real life fire does damage to you.*"


It's clearly "*more than zero times.*"

*UPD:*



> c) when you start/hold the grapple (doesn't immediately try to escape)


I'd say "when you start (or end, don't know what is better) your turn being in grapple with F elemental".

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> What if elemental missed? Or didn't use slam attack? Harmless hugs with fire?
> 
> 
> ...*snip*...


Haven't you ever seen how someone can move fast in fire without taking any damage? If you are fast enough and don't make long contact you can avoid taking fire damage to some degree. Which means that there need to be a certain amount of contact time for you to take dmg, depending on your speed/agility.

Further, you are assuming that all fire has to be hot and thus damaging.

Btw, did you know that we can produce cold fire (room temperature)? Or even cold enough to "freeze" stuff? (Freezing Fire YT video)
Thus there is no reason to assume that the F. Elemental's body is constantly damaging anything it "touches". As said, its not a touch attack. Sole the Slam attack is able to apply fire dmg to you. And in return, only if you "hit"  the elemental unarmed/natural weapon, you accumulate enough fire heat (due to moving directly towards the source of the fire steam) to take damage.
Does this help you to explain what is going on?

Imho you try to forcefully apply real life physics *with assumptions* (that the fire is damaging all the time) *that are not reflected by the rules*. While imho there are options to explain the situation with real life physics.

Try to see it this way. In real life you can try to avoid taking fire dmg (minimizing dmg) or you can try to force your way out (taking the risk of more dmg to achieve a goal). Same can be said about the Burn ability. A foe can try to minimize the dmg in a grapple with an immediate escape attempt, or go brute force and remain in a grapple and risk taking more fire damage. 
And if he is fast enough (escape the grapple on his first turn being grappled by the F. Elemental), he can avoid being Burned at all. 
If he is so insane to pin the F. Elemental, he risks being burned by the Slam ability. The pinned F. Elemental has to chose to either use its Slam to build enough heat to burn you, or focus on escaping the pin.

----------


## loky1109

> Haven't you ever seen how someone can move fast in fire without taking any damage? If you are fast enough and don't make long contact you can avoid taking fire damage to some degree. Which means that there need to be a certain amount of contact time for you to take dmg, depending on your speed/agility.





> A foe can try to minimize the dmg in a grapple with an immediate escape attempt, or go brute force and remain in a grapple and risk taking more fire damage.
> And if he is fast enough (escape the grapple on his first turn being grappled by the F. Elemental), he can avoid being Burned at all.


You didn't read me or I so bad in writing?

What "move fast" you are talking about? I talk you "I can harmless pin elemental for unlimited amount of time" you talk me about "escape the grapple on his first turn". What?





> Btw, did you know that we can produce cold fire (room temperature)? Or even cold enough to "freeze" stuff? (Freezing Fire YT video)


Do you really think it can be about Fire elemental? Fire elemental of room temperature? 




> And in return, only if you "hit" the elemental unarmed/natural weapon, you accumulate enough fire heat (due to moving directly towards the source of the fire steam) to take damage.


If you move through fire quick (strike elemental) you take damage. If you slowly snuggle fire for a long time you don't. 





> Thus there is no reason to assume that the F. Elemental's body is constantly damaging anything it "touches".


I disagree.




> Does this help you to explain what is going on?


No.




> Imho you try to forcefully apply real life physics


Again no.




> that are not reflected by the rules


Yes, that's why this is Dysfunctional Rules.




> While imho there are options to explain the situation with real life physics.


Occam's razor isn't on your side. Your explanations are more complicated and less intuitive.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> You didn't read me or I so bad in writing?
> 
> What "move fast" you are talking about? I talk you "I can harmless pin elemental for unlimited amount of time" you talk me about "escape the grapple on his first turn". What?


According to your assumption the Fire Elemental has to start a successful grapple attempt and then lose all future rolls, because now magically "sole you win the grapple rolls" to pin him. The Fire Elemental sole tries to escape the pin and not to attack you. How convenient..




> Do you really think it can be about Fire elemental? Fire elemental of room temperature?


Do you have any indicator that proves otherwise? Since I'm not biased towards a certain outcome I can easily assume that it is not constantly burning hot. And your assumption is based on what? At least not on the rules presented. Since I tried multiple times to showcase how a legit interpretation of the rules might look like.




> If you move through fire quick (strike elemental) you take damage. If you slowly snuggle fire for a long time you don't.


You are totally overshadowing him in the grapple as you said. So much that he sole tries to escape and not hurt you back. Your assuming that the fire elemental tries to escape the grapple and not use the grapple to harm his enemy all the time. Well if the Fire Elemental itself is not interested in harming you, it's no wonder when you never take Burn dmg. 
How do you explain that the F. Elemental never tries to successfully use its Slam attack?
It managed to get a hold on you (for unarmed strike dmg), because you can't start  a grapple without getting burned (due to the needed successful Touch Attack = unarmed attack). But as said, magically now sole you win the grapple rolls to pin it forever..




> I disagree.
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Again no.


I know your opinion by now. Repeating it won't convince me. How about some logical arguments to back up your position? If you really wanna convince people of your point of view, it would help to connect your opinion with some logical arguments based on the rule text. Simple yes/no answers are just provocative, since you just say "I'm right, you are wrong, and you have to believe what I say", which is rude.







> Yes, that's why this is Dysfunctional Rules.
> 
> 
> Occam's razor isn't on your side. Your explanations are more complicated and less intuitive.


After making a bunch of wild assumptions (F. Elemental sole winning its initiating grapple roll and then constantly losing somehow and never wins again), you come to the conclusion that it is dysfunctional. And Occam's Razor should favor you? Sorry, it's the opposite. You have made assumptions not reflected by the rule text, have sole given your minimalist opinion without explanations, while I tried to connect the given rules with real life physics.
You are totally biased towards a specific outcome to forcefully come to the conclusion that the F Elemental is dysfunctional, without giving it a chance to have a legit explanation. That's not how Occam's razor works.

----------


## loky1109

> How do you explain that the F. Elemental never tries to successfully use its Slam attack?


He is pinned.




> wild assumptions (F. Elemental sole winning its initiating grapple roll and then constantly losing somehow and never wins again)


Never said that.
Doesn't matter who initiate grapple. Yes, it highly likely can be me, yes, I take Burn once. And what does it change? "Never wins" grapple is exaggeration, but even several round in row (say four) is enough to see issue.




> And Occam's Razor should favor you?


Of course yes! I talk about fire elemental itself and your trying to explain why he isn't hot. Room temperature fire elemental is nonsense even if nothing in rulebooks saying this directly.
Forever pin example is just example it shouldn't be something from real game. It isn't assumption it's thought experiment. My sole assumption is: "Fire Elemental should be constantly burning hot." against your: "Fire Elemental can be of room temperature."

*UPD:*



> Do you have any indicator that proves otherwise?


Yes, I have!



> _A mass of ambulatory flame races across the ground, seeming to flicker and spark from a central, humanoid-shaped conflagration. Like a living inferno, the fire-creatures burning dance of heat and flame brings it ever closer_
> Fire elementals are fast and agile. The merest touch from their fiery bodies is sufficient to set many materials aflame.

----------


## loky1109

Let's talk about something less controversial.

Serpent Kingdoms... I bless you...




> Members of this house, known as Eselemaa, are known for their jungle srealth and battle-prowess. Those who hunt regularly possess the Prehensile Tail feat and are accomplished at wielding and hurling weapons with their tails.


Well, looks ok, yeah? No, it doesn't.



> *Prerequisite*: STR 13, tail attack, Two-Weapon Fighting or Multiweapon Fighting.


Yuan-Ti don't possess tail attack.

----------


## Jervis

Not quite a standard dysfunction but seeing as I am who I am its worth bringing up that, after all these years, we still arent 100% sure how Shair spell retrieval and subsequent spell vanishing works. I have a entire thread somewhere on this site dedicated to explaining how theyre debatably spontaneous casters. Thats definitely a bizarre take and not something I want to launch into a debate about here but just the fact that a Shair can be argued to function as a spontaneous caster, prepared caster, both, or neither is worth bringing up.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> He is pinned.


Yeah, and what should that change? Are you maybe under the false impression that a pinned character may not attack anymore? If that is the case, reread pls the rule. It sole limits movement ("imobile").



> *If Youre Pinned by an Opponent*
> 
> When an opponent has pinned you, you are held *immobile (but not helpless)* for 1 round. While youre pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. At your opponents option, you may also be unable to speak. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but youre still grappling.


Nowhere does the text imply a restriction to your attacks. It sole restricts your movement and provides additional "attack replacement"-actions.






> Of course yes! I talk about fire elemental itself and your trying to explain why he isn't hot. Room temperature fire elemental is nonsense even if nothing in rulebooks saying this directly.
> Forever pin example is just example it shouldn't be something from real game. It isn't assumption it's thought experiment. My sole assumption is: "Fire Elemental should be constantly burning hot." against your: "Fire Elemental can be of room temperature."
> 
> *UPD:*
> 
> Yes, I have!


The rulebook provides you with mechanical rules.
As we have agreed, there is no mechanical dysfunction that it becomes unplayable/unsolvable.

While we could explain what is happening with real life physics, you insist that the F. Elemental is constantly having the same high temperature over its entire body. You are implying things that are not presented by rules to discredit em. 
What happens when you cover up fire? You extinguish the covered fire (unless the reaction is non Oxigen/air based, which are rare).

And while I said, room temperature fire, that was just meant as one possible option. How about fire with a temperature slightly below boiling point. Contact won't kill you right away, but will definitively hurt you. And since you have now covered the spot, the reaction at that spot is stopped and the temperature starts to drop.

Instead of picking sole one point of view, I would suggest to try multiple views on a situation before calling it dysfunctional. You just picked one view, that you favor for some reason, and ignore other possible options. Instead of relying on non ruletext-based assumptions to discredit rules, you could take the rules and try to find real life explanations. But that might require more work (and sometimes more research... I 'm reminded of a debate where we where discussing the anatomy of beholders and squids and the like, if they have heads for the multiheaded template...
edit: we even had someone outing himself as biology professor, who did gave us a free lesson on the anatomy of animals..^^).

----------


## loky1109

> Yeah, and what should that change? Are you maybe under the false impression that a pinned character may not attack anymore?


This impression isn't false.

This is the false impression:



> It sole restricts your movement and provides additional "attack replacement"-actions.


"In place of an attack" doesn't mean you can actually attack. Here this sentence is only for determining numbers of attempts.




> Nowhere does the text imply a restriction to your attacks.


Let's read.



> *If Youre Grappling*
> ...
> 
> *Cast a Spell*
> You can attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided its casting time is no more than 1 standard action, it has no somatic component, and you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need. Any spell that requires precise and careful action is impossible to cast while grappling or being pinned. If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell. You dont have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell.
> 
> ...


"Cast a Spell" is the single grapple action option which has this sentence (or even while pinned). This means over options (besides options added in pin description) are not available. In pin description are added two options: "try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack" and "make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action". Eventually we have only three possible action for pinned creature.

If you still don't agree with me, there is one guy who can confirm my words, you maybe know him.



> As you might expect, you can't move out of the space you share with a foe that has pinned you. You cannot take any other actions except to make an opposed grapple check to escape the pin in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win the opposed check, you escape the pin, but you're still grappling. If your base attack bonus allows you to make multiple attacks, you can attempt to escape the pin multiple times (at successively lower attack bonuses). If you escape the pin, you're still grappling with your foe, but if you have still have attacks available, you can keep right on grappling, as noted in Part Two.


All About Grappling (Part Three)




> As we have agreed, there is no mechanical dysfunction that it becomes unplayable/unsolvable.


Drown healing has no mechanical dysfunction, too. Isn't it dysfunctional rule? I think it clearly is.
There are no mechanical issue in the non-burning elemental, yes. But it still is dysfunctional, because while it work, it work wrong, not work as it should work.




> While we could explain what is happening with real life physics


Your assumption "fire elemental can actually consist of cold fire" while is from real life physics and can be "explanation" doesn't work. First. I gave you quotas where write - Fire Elemental is hot! 
Second. Aragorn's pant. J. R. R. Tolkien newer said that Aragorn wore pant. Does it mean that Aragorn walk around parading his reproductive organs or we should use default idea that men wear pants? Nowhere in D&D rules said nothing about Fire elemental temperature, yes. Do you really think Fire elemental can be room temperature without special indication to this? Or can we use our default that "fire is hot"?




> And while I said, room temperature fire, that was just meant as one possible option.


It is impossible option.



> How about fire with a temperature slightly below boiling point.


Still impossible.

Read again:



> The merest touch from their fiery bodies is sufficient to set many materials aflame.


What materials can be set aflame by a room temperature or a temperature slightly below boiling point?

----------


## Bucky

> What materials can be set aflame by a room temperature or a temperature slightly below boiling point?


Quite a few! But you don't tend to encounter them in everyday life for obvious reasons.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> This impression isn't false.
> 
> This is the false impression:
> 
> 
> "In place of an attack" doesn't mean you can actually attack. Here this sentence is only for determining numbers of attempts.


The first part of the sentence sole restricts your movement. I guess we share this view and we can proceed to the remaining part of the sentence.
The final part of the sentence gives you *additional* "attack replacement"-actions (in addition to those "attack replacement" options you are given in the general grappling rules).
Where does it say that you can't use the "general attack action"-options anymore? The general grappling rules still apply. You are still in a grapple state. A specific one, but the rule provided for that specific "pin" state sole restrict your movement and add options that you can use instead of an attack. Nowhere does it say you can't attack anymore.
This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted. The 3.5 "pin" state is when the grapplers are on the ground and one has the upper position. The grounded grappler can still attack (e.g. a headbutt; a knife, claws, bite...).
Do you know the "mount" stance? A common grappling stance from many combat arts. The "3.5 pin" resembles something like in This Video. You have the option to prevent your foe from speaking if you want (to invest your action into it), but you foe is still capable of attacking you back or can try to escape the "pin/mount" state. It is not a state of full lock used for submission. The 3.5 rules don't reflect this kind of grappling.




> Let's read.
> 
> "Cast a Spell" is the single grapple action option which has this sentence (or even while pinned). This means over options (besides options added in pin description) are not available. In pin description are added two options: "try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack" and "make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action". Eventually we have only three possible action for pinned creature.
> 
> If you still don't agree with me, there is one guy who can confirm my words, you maybe know him.


casting a spell just confirms with a friendly reminder that the general options are still available in the "pin" state.

Sadly, "Skip" seems to have the false impression what RAW is dictating here. His intention (if he did write that rule at all) was maybe that "pin" should resemble a "full lock submission hold", but that is not what the rules tell us. "Pin" is grounded grappling with one person in a favorable position, e.g. "mounting your foe".





> Your assumption "fire elemental can actually consist of cold fire" while is from real life physics and can be "explanation" doesn't work. First. I gave you quotas where write - Fire Elemental is hot! 
> Second. Aragorn's pant. J. R. R. Tolkien newer said that Aragorn wore pant. Does it mean that Aragorn walk around parading his reproductive organs or we should use default idea that men wear pants? Nowhere in D&D rules said nothing about Fire elemental temperature, yes. Do you really think Fire elemental can be room temperature without special indication to this? Or can we use our default that "fire is hot"?
> 
> 
> It is impossible option.
> 
> Still impossible.
> 
> Read again:
> ...


Cold fire was just to showcase that you can produce fire at nearly any temperature. There are still limits like the freezing point. But the argument was intended to show that any temperature is possible. We assume that on first contact (when the fire is still fully exposed to Oxygen to fuel its reaction) the fire is at the hottest state and just enough to damage you. But constant contact extinguishes the flames locally temporarily enough to prevent further damage. While a punch or headbutt will cause new/additional body parts to come into contact.

___

As said, if we start to nitpick, we could also argue that nobody gets sunburn from taking fire damage or by having a fire elemental standing near to you all day long. And we have "sunburn" rules in Sandstorm, but these don't cover such specific situations. From a logical point of view: "When a foe's entire body was grilled by an fire AoE attack, he should have at least the same condition as someone who is merely sunburn."

----------


## loky1109

> The final part of the sentence gives you additional "attack replacement"-actions (in addition to those "attack replacement" options you are given in the general grappling rules).


Can't agree with you. For me it looks exactly as full available list (plus casting a spell as special exception) of "attack replacement" actions available for pinned creature.




> Where does it say that you can't use the "general attack action"-options anymore?


By that logic, you can use this option being pinned:




> *Escape from Grapple*
> You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents dont have to try to hold you if they dont want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).


and this:



> *Pin Your Opponent*
> You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below).






> This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.


I think it exactly is. And should be. Yes, wording is slightly poor and ambiguous, but there are nothing against my interpretation.




> The 3.5 "pin" state is when the grapplers are on the ground and one has the upper position. The grounded grappler can still attack (e.g. a headbutt; a knife, claws, bite...).


Where did you take it from? It's clearly wrong. "On the ground" names "prone" not "pin". 




> The "3.5 pin" resembles something like in This Video.


You need only to give at least some proof of this hypothesis.




> This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.


Ok. Let's say that. But then where is a full lock grappling technique? Or you want to say it doesn't exist?




> casting a spell just confirms with a friendly reminder that the general options are still available in the "pin" state.


It isn't "a friendly reminder" it is "the existence of an exception confirms the existence of the rule".




> Sadly, "Skip" seems to have the false impression what RAW is dictating here.


Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.




> Cold fire was just to showcase that you can produce fire at nearly any temperature. There are still limits like the freezing point. But the argument was intended to show that any temperature is possible. We assume that on first contact (when the fire is still fully exposed to Oxygen to fuel its reaction) the fire is at the hottest state and just enough to damage you. But constant contact extinguishes the flames locally temporarily enough to prevent further damage. While a punch or headbutt will cause new/additional body parts to come into contact.


Yes, you can use imagination and explain why it's harmless to hug fire elemental. Fact you need use imagination so hardly for explaining this exactly means this rule is dysfunctional.

----------


## Bucky

Is that an additional, more general dysfunction, then? "Being grappled and pinned fails to prevent most actions?"

----------


## loky1109

> Is that an additional, more general dysfunction, then? "Being grappled and pinned fails to prevent most actions?"


This is dysfunctional reading, not dysfunctional rule.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Second. Aragorn's pant. J. R. R. Tolkien newer said that Aragorn wore pant. Does it mean that Aragorn walk around parading his reproductive organs or we should use default idea that men wear pants?


Minute of historic facts: ancient Romans considered pants a "barbaric clothes", and - indeed - wore no pants.
Medieval Europeans inherited this sentiment: chausses were, in fact, stockings - not pants.



Now, since _Lord of the Rings_ was made to look - more or less - like a medieval Europe, then *should* Aragorn really wear pants?

At the very least, he didn't - in the Ralph Bakshi's  version:

----------


## St Fan

From the _Player's Handbook II_:




> A fighter can select Ki Blast as one of his fighter bonus feats. A monk with the Stunning Fist feat can select Ki Blast as her bonus feat at 8th level, as long as she possesses the Fiery Fist feat and a base attack bonus of +6 (other prerequisites can be ignored).


Problem is, a monk doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level; it happens at 6th level.

At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...

Thus a monk has no choice but to take the feat a 8th level, but doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level... color me confused!

(Note that it matter much considering Ki Blast is crap, but still...)

----------


## Jervis

> From the _Player's Handbook II_:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, a monk doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level; it happens at 6th level.
> 
> At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...
> 
> Thus a monk has no choice but to take the feat a 8th level, but doesn't get a bonus feat at 8th level... color me confused!
> ...


note that text beats table so that means monks get a 8th level bonus feat!

----------


## ShurikVch

> note that text beats table so that means monks get a 8th level bonus feat!


But only if the bonus feat is Ki Blast!  :Small Amused:

----------


## loky1109

> At first I just thought it was a typo, and they meant 6th level... except it goes on and specify you also need a BAB+6, which a 6th level monk with a normal progression doesn't get at 6th level, but indeed at 8th level, so it looks like there's no mistake...


PHBII had introduced retrain. Maybe it's a nod to it?




> But only if the bonus feat is Ki Blast!


Or Fiery Ki Defense. It has the same text.

----------


## Gruftzwerg

> Can't agree with you. For me it looks exactly as full available list (plus casting a spell as special exception) of "attack replacement" actions available for pinned creature.


and which part of the text indicates this for you? If you can't point it out, it sole your imagination (no offense here, but my brain needs to confirm it, otherwise it won't believe you ;)






> By that logic, you can use this option being pinned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Escape from Grapple
> You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents dont have to try to hold you if they dont want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).
> 			
> ...


Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"



> On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. *If you win, you escape the pin, but youre still grappling.*


We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.

Regading "Pin Your Opponent":
It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?". And after 20 years of discussions, imho most people are on the "No you can't trip someone who is already tripped"-side. As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned". That is by logic not possible. It's like saying "I stand up, while already standing". You can't further stand up than normal. So *pls*, lets skip this nonsense. It won't make anyone happy and it won't bring any meaningful results.






> I think it exactly is. And should be. Yes, wording is slightly poor and ambiguous, but there are nothing against my interpretation.
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.


Imho, if we ask how realistic the implementation of grappling into 3.5 is, we have to admit that it is far from perfect. It tries to give some oversimplified rules for a fluent gameplay. 

What we have is:
- rules for standing grappling (standing as in the 3.5 rules)
- rules for grounded grappling (grounded as in the 3.5 rules)

The question or problem is, which kind of grounded grappling this is. Is it:
(a) just both grappler at the ground, both in equal good/bad position.
(b) both grapplers at the ground and one has the upper hand
(c) both grapplers are at the ground, but one has a "full lock" on the other.

I can see why the "full lock" option (c)  is appealing and why even Skip Williams seems be believe in it. So you have an argument for RAI as said. But RAW speak another language here. RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options. 
So imho, the "pin" state is best reflected by option (b), that one grappler has the upper hand, which alters the options slightly (and doesn't exchanges em completely).

If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.

----------


## loky1109

> and which part of the text indicates this for you?


Already did it. At least two times.




> Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"





> We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.


No. "Escape from Grapple" and "Escape the Pin" are different actions. Very similar, but clearly different. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?





> It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?".


What? Really, what??? Are you serious now?




> As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned".


You even didn't try to read carefully and understand my point, did you?

We are talking about actions available for *PINNED* creature. Not one who pins, but one who is pinned. 




> What we have is:
> - rules for standing grappling (standing as in the 3.5 rules)
> - rules for grounded grappling (grounded as in the 3.5 rules)


There isn't different rules for standing and grounded grappling in D&D 3.5. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?




> The question or problem is, which kind of grounded grappling this is. Is it:
> (a) just both grappler at the ground, both in equal good/bad position.
> (b) both grapplers at the ground and one has the upper hand
> (c) both grapplers are at the ground, but one has a "full lock" on the other.


"At the ground" is an unnecessary substance. There are no differences between "full lock" at the ground and "full lock" while standing. Both are the same pin.




> But RAW speak another language here.


Rules about grapple and pin are poor written and can be interpreted in two ways. RAW is ambiguous here. Not "RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options" is clear and only possible reading. You for some reason like this interpretation and want to think it is sole true, but you are wrong.
And while we have ambiguous wording we should use RAI. Especially since RAI is pretty clear stated by one of game designers.




> If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.


I gave you all you need, but I can't make you drink.

----------


## St Fan

> Minute of historic facts: ancient Romans considered pants a "barbaric clothes", and - indeed - wore no pants.
> Medieval Europeans inherited this sentiment: chausses were, in fact, stockings - not pants.


Wait a minute... could that be the explanation for the lack of a "pants" magic item slot?

----------


## loky1109

> Wait a minute... could that be the explanation for the lack of a "pants" magic item slot?


Stop! It isn't Functional Rules thread!

----------


## St Fan

> Stop! It isn't Functional Rules thread!


Yeah, I guess making too much sense is entirely against the mood of the thread... 


Okay, this one I don't know if it counts as a dysfunctional rule, or just as false advertising...




> A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. *Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items.*


The bold part is indeed true... if you dismiss entirely the spells _aerial alacrity_, _battletide_, _enhance familiar_, _haste_, _nature's avatar_, _swift haste_, _unmovable object_ and _visions of the future_.

----------


## AsuraKyoko

I'm honestly surprised that only 8 spells break the dodge bonus rule. (And I'm a bit amused that one of them is in the Player's Handbook, no less)

----------


## ShurikVch

Animus template (_Dragon_ #339):



> *Feats:* An animus gain Alertness, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes as bonus feats, assuming it meets the prerequisites and it doesn't already have these feats.


Now: Alertness; Improved Initiative; Lightning Reflexes...  :Small Confused:  Gee, *what* "prerequisites"?

----------


## St Fan

> I'm honestly surprised that only 8 spells break the dodge bonus rule. (And I'm a bit amused that one of them is in the Player's Handbook, no less)


Well, on a technicality, you can add the spells _heroics_ and _mirror move_ to the list, since they can give a dodge bonus indirectly by granting feats such as Dodge or Combat Expertise.

----------


## Jervis

> Animus template (_Dragon_ #339):
> 
> Now: Alertness; Improved Initiative; Lightning Reflexes...  Gee, *what* "prerequisites"?


In their defense this is likely a case of copy pasting or something.

----------


## Bucky

As a tangent from this thread, the Craft Artifact divine salient ability lets its holder create various magic items, but fails to specify that the items made with it are artifacts as opposed to normal magic items that happen to exceed the regular crafting limits.

3.5e, obviously

----------


## Malphegor

> Don't know if it belongs there, but _Arms and Equipment Guide_ is peppered with mentions of 2E spells which either don't exist in 3E, or, at the very least, don't have the same name.
> So far I noticed:
> Closing Blade required _Free Action_ spell
> _Death Spell_ is a requirement for Balor's Sword of Flame, Balor's Sword of Soul Stealing, and Sword of the Solars


theres a lot of 2e in arms and equipment guide, theres a big chunk of its item lists thats the sfw sections of auroras whole realms catalogue. Which is a shame with some of the interesting bits being missing as I feel 3e could benefit from knowing the price of a elf dress versus a human dress

----------


## St Fan

This one may have been already mentioned; at least I'm sure it was discussed on this forum, although maybe not in this thread.

The spell _arcane spellsurge_ reduces casting time of arcane spells. For example, a "standard action" casting time becomes a swift action.

It cannot be ignored, though, thus it specifies that you can't cast two spells which casting times were both reduced to a swift action, because you can't use two swift actions in a round.

Except... you CAN uses two swift actions in a round. It's called "Readying an Action". With a standard action, you can ready a standard, move, *swift* or free action. And of course, the readying condition can be "immediately".

(Note that the original rules about readying an action don't mention the swift action, but that's only because they were introduced later in the game. The _Rule Compendium_ clarifies that swift actions are covered by the Ready rules.)

Hence, the affirmation made by _arcane spellsurge_ is blatantly false.

----------


## Biggus

> Okay, this one I don't know if it counts as a dysfunctional rule, or just as false advertising...
> 
> The bold part is indeed true... if you dismiss entirely the spells _aerial alacrity_, _battletide_, _enhance familiar_, _haste_, _nature's avatar_, _swift haste_, _unmovable object_ and _visions of the future_.


That's actually a dysfunction in the SRD, not the rules. The rules said no dodge bonuses from magic in 3.0, in 3.5 they say:




> Spells and magic items occasionally grant dodge bonuses

----------


## Tohron

> That's actually a dysfunction in the SRD, not the rules. The rules said no dodge bonuses from magic in 3.0, in 3.5 they say: "Spells and magic items occasionally grant dodge bonuses"


So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?

----------


## InvisibleBison

> So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?


If you can convince your DM to let you do so, then yes.

----------


## tyckspoon

> So, then it would be rules-legal in 3.5 to create a magic item giving a +6 dodge bonus to Will saves?


If you're convincing your DM to let you make custom items already anyways, sure. It'd be -weird- but there isn't anything that would contradict it working; bonus types really only 'usually' apply to certain things.

----------


## Bucky

On the DM end, I _might_ allow a one-off Dodge bonus to saving throws, particularly Reflex. Not more than once per campaign, though.

----------


## AsuraKyoko

> On the DM end, I _might_ allow a one-off Dodge bonus to saving throws, particularly Reflex. Not more than once per campaign, though.


Reflex saves are one of the things Dodge bonuses are supposed to apply to normally, iirc.

----------


## Bucky

You are correct, dodge bonuses to reflex saves are specifically called out as valid. The haste spell and whirling frenzy barbarian both give dodge bonuses to reflex saves.

Dodge bonuses to Will or Fort saves are what I might allow once per campaign.

----------


## Seward

> Not sure if this has been mentioned in one of these threads before, but the -2 sword being awesome will always be a favorite of mine.


Back in 1st edition I had a local bandit leader called the "Cursed Bandit".   His schtick was to infiltrate caravans as an ordinary, unarmed person then ambush the leadership or guards in cursed fullplate and cursed sword, just before his minions ambushed.  Sure both weapon and armor were -1 and might shatter under rare circumstances, but were a lot better than fighting unarmed and he usually started in some situation when he was at a major advantage (target is sleeping, bathing, etc - if he was the appropriate gender preference he might try an "intimate" meeting with them).  

His goal was to acquire more such items so he could infiltrate with a squad but the PC's put him down.  His Lieutenants tended to be equipped with magical loot scrapings from the bottom of the magic-mart barrel - +1 scale armor or shortsword +1/+4 vs lizards.  He had ties with merchants that bought the crap found in dungeons that no PC ever wanted to use.  Some items had in fact been recently sold by PCs, which also exposed his merchant contacts much to the displeasure of local law enforcement and their fellow merchants.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Enforcers gain a +1 bonus to their leadership score, although the maximum number and level of their followers and cohorts remains standard.


Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but what other use there for the Leadership score, if not for the level and number of cohort and followers?

Also, don't know if it was already mentioned, but:



> A humanoid or monstrous humanoid who dons the admirals bicorne gains a +5 bonus on Profession (sailor) checks and all Charisma-based checks (including Leadership) as long as it is worn.


Leadership is not a check...

----------


## tyckspoon

> Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but what other use there for the Leadership score, if not for the level and number of cohort and followers?


This would be a Practiced Spellcaster type of effect - if your Leadership score isn't high enough to attract the maximum level of cohort you are otherwise entitled to (for example say you have a low or even negative Charisma modifer, maybe have the penalties for 'moves around a lot' and getting a previous cohort killed so your basic score no longer gets your cohort to level cap) then this bonus can catch you up. Functional rule, just limited in application as the kinds of characters that typically take Leadership won't often need that benefit.

----------


## ShurikVch

> This would be a Practiced Spellcaster type of effect - if your Leadership score isn't high enough to attract the maximum level of cohort you are otherwise entitled to (for example say you have a low or even negative Charisma modifer, maybe have the penalties for 'moves around a lot' and getting a previous cohort killed so your basic score no longer gets your cohort to level cap) then this bonus can catch you up. Functional rule, just limited in application as the kinds of characters that typically take Leadership won't often need that benefit.


Excuse me, but even with penalty - wouldn't this +1 still increase the "maximum number and level of their followers and cohorts"?.. But "maximum ... remains standard"...  :Small Confused:

----------


## tyckspoon

Well, cohort level is affected by both the character's level and their Leadership score - you get the lower of what is permitted by your leadership score, or (Level -2.) If you Leadership score is too low you may not be able to get the maximum level cohort you otherwise would have (but if you have a long-term cohort you've probably leveled them up by their own XP gain rather than trying to attract a new one at base level anyways.)

For followers, yeah, it would appear to do absolutely nothing, as those have no other limit other than the one given by the chart and the ability explicitly does not count for that. :shrug: Like I said, it works.. just what it works on is a very niche and small scope.

----------


## Inevitability

> Leadership is not a check...


The interesting bit is that there's at least one other place in the books that refers to 'leadership checks'




> You can grossly violate your deities code of conduct, but not your class alignment restriction, without risk of loss of spells or class abilities. If you are a cleric, your alignment may be 2 steps away from your respective deity's alignment instead of just one. (in other words you can violate your deity's alignment restrictions 1 extra step.) You can gain levels without atoning (see the atonement spell description). However, you are in no way exempt from excommunication, or immune to divine retribution from your deity or his servants. In fact your actions invite the highest levels of scrutiny. If you have access to domains, you can exchange any one domain you have with another domain outside those normally available to your faith. The new domain must be consistent with the tenets of your heresy (as adjudicated by th DM). Likewise you can exchange your favored weapon and weapon of the deity (Mag) spell effect for another consistent with the tenents of your heresy (as adjudicated by the DM). *Taking this feat automatically prompts a leadership check. All cohorts or followers who are members of your faith either agree to your heresy or are lost.* Moreover upon your death you are judged one of the false (P 250 FRCS) unless your deity specifically intervenes on your behalf with Kelemvor. Without the use of the Miracle or wish spell, this does not happen unless your heresies are adopted by the deity and the faith as a whole. It is theoretically possible that such intervention could occur long after your death, but such cases are vanishingly rare.


Note how there's no mention of a DC, or even what exactly the check is.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Well, cohort level is affected by both the character's level and their Leadership score - you get the lower of what is permitted by your leadership score, or (Level -2.) If you Leadership score is too low you may not be able to get the maximum level cohort you otherwise would have (but if you have a long-term cohort you've probably leveled them up by their own XP gain rather than trying to attract a new one at base level anyways.)
> 
> For followers, yeah, it would appear to do absolutely nothing, as those have no other limit other than the one given by the chart and the ability explicitly does not count for that. :shrug: Like I said, it works.. just what it works on is a very niche and small scope.


Thus, it falls to the definition of what, exactly, is "maximum level cohort"...
OK, "dysfunction by specific reading" - not a valid dysfunction





> The interesting bit is that there's at least one other place in the books that refers to 'leadership checks'
> 
> Note how there's no mention of a DC, or even what exactly the check is.


Chalk it to the "authors don't know how their own rules work"  :Small Amused:  (like "Armored Uncanny Dodge", "Tumbler's Breastplate", etc)

----------


## Monarch Dodora

Another dysfunctional spell: *Hibernate*, from _Frostburn_. It claims to 'put a creature in suspended animation for weeks at a time', but when it lists out what this 'suspension of life functions' actually does, all it mentions is:  automatically stabilizes a dying  creature, saves starving or  dehydrated creatures from death, and slows natural healing to 1hp/week. Nothing at all about loss of consciousness or inability to take actions. And it lasts 1 week per CL.

----------


## Jervis

It really does shock me sometimes how literally unusable some things in this game are since the writers didnt know there own rules. Leadership checks are one of those things that dont make sense at all as far as I can tell

----------


## St Fan

One thing that may not be really dysfunctional, but always struck me as odd, is the "[creature] affinity" part of the Bloodline rules.

It gives a bonus (+2, +4 or +6) to some interpersonal skill checks (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform) when interacting with the specific creatures from which a character with a bloodline is related.

My problem is... character with a hybrid template doesn't get any such bonus (for example, a half-dragon doesn't have a +6 or +8 bonus on these skills with true dragons). And I would assume the bloodline is much more diluted with the basic bloodline rules.

Nor full-blooded creatures get a +8 or +10 bonus on these skills with member of their own race. Maybe they should, but with the current rules, that's nowhere the case.

So, what makes character with a diluted bloodline so much more attractive/efficient with their remote relatives?

----------


## Thurbane

> Animus template (_Dragon_ #339):
> 
> Now: Alertness; Improved Initiative; Lightning Reflexes...  Gee, *what* "prerequisites"?





> In their defense this is likely a case of copy pasting or something.


Yeah it's pretty much copied from the Vampire template (although in this case, Dodge does have a req):




> Vampires gain Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, and Lightning Reflexes, assuming the base creature meets the prerequisites and doesnt already have these feats.

----------


## Inevitability

Decipher Script checks are made secretly:




> Both the Decipher Script check and (if necessary) the Wisdom check are made secretly, so that you cant tell whether the conclusion you draw is true or false.


So are forgery checks:




> The Forgery check is made secretly, so that youre not sure how good your forgery is.


This makes the Quill of Sivis feat, which grants you the ability to reroll a Decipher Script or Forgery check 1/day... somewhat pointless. It has different benefits too, but still!

----------


## Morphic tide

Arcane Spell Failure only applies to spells with Somatic components, and is the only constraint affected by Armored Mage. Heavy shields prevent you from using that hand for material or somatic components independently of ASF. Arcane Channeling requires a weapon to deliver the attack. Consequently, the only conditions where the Duskblade's 7th-level improvement of Armored Mage applies to their Arcane Channeling is if they are doing it with a Shield Bash, an Unarmed Strike, a book-dived probably-Exotic hands-free weapon, or have more than two arms.

----------


## Nikker

Forgive me if any of these had already be mentioned, but I'm very fond of positive/negative energy nonsense, such as:
- Undead technically - RAW - not taking damage on the Positive Energy plane (it gives fast healing, and undead can have fast healing too), although anyone in their right mind would know it's implicit that it's positive-energy-based fast healing, and that it should deal harm to undead.
- Undead technically not gaining any healing by the fact of being on the negative energy plane (negative energy plane imposed negative levels, to which they're immune, but they gain nothing from it; also, a minor negative energy trait will damage living creatures' HPs, but it says nothing about healing undead)

And, loosely related:
Vivacious Creature template, stating that the vivacious creature is incorporeal thus it has no Str score, while at the same time stating that if the creature wants to suppress its Positive Energy Aura, the creature will take 1 point of Str damage for each full minute that the aura is inactive.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

The lycanthrope template does not add any of the base animal's subtypes to the base creature, and no mention is made of those subtypes applying in hybrid or animal form. 90% of animals don't have subtypes, and templates which add subtypes would generally change the animal's type to something other than animal, so this usually doesn't matter.

The (aquatic) subtype designates creatures that can breathe water, but not air, such as fish and cephalopods. This ability is tied to the subtype, rather than a special quality or something; if a creature somehow lost its (aquatic) subtype, it would no longer be able to breathe water.

Weresharks drown.

----------


## Inevitability

> The lycanthrope template does not add any of the base animal's subtypes to the base creature, and no mention is made of those subtypes applying in hybrid or animal form. 90% of animals don't have subtypes, and templates which add subtypes would generally change the animal's type to something other than animal, so this usually doesn't matter.
> 
> The (aquatic) subtype designates creatures that can breathe water, but not air, such as fish and cephalopods. This ability is tied to the subtype, rather than a special quality or something; if a creature somehow lost its (aquatic) subtype, it would no longer be able to breathe water.
> 
> Weresharks drown.


How often would a wereshark curse a human to begin with? I'd expect them to stick to aquatic elves and sahuagin...

----------


## loky1109

> How often would a wereshark curse a human to begin with? I'd expect them to stick to aquatic elves and sahuagin...


Sahuagins are monstrous humanoid.
Asking on your question, I think it happens often enough. It's far more easy to bite human than aquatic elf.

----------


## Inevitability

> Sahuagins are monstrous humanoid.
> Asking on your question, I think it happens often enough. It's far more easy to bite human than aquatic elf.


Oh huh, I completely forgot monstrous humanoids can't become lycanthropes. Giants being valid (on that note, has anyone ever _used_ lycanthropic giants?) threw me off.

----------


## loky1109

> Oh huh, I completely forgot monstrous humanoids can't become lycanthropes. Giants being valid (on that note, has anyone ever _used_ lycanthropic giants?) threw me off.


I used weregoat ettin as random encounter once. )

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> How often would a wereshark curse a human to begin with? I'd expect them to stick to aquatic elves and sahuagin...


I expect weresharks would bite anyone who wound up in the water. And while aquatic elves are always in the water, there are a _lot_ more air-breathers, and some of them are sailors.

I wouldn't expect there to be a ton of air-breathing weresharks, but I also wouldn't expect there to be a ton of weresharks _period_.





> Pathfinder has rules for siege towers. It describes them as having a bottom section for pushing the tower and a roof section as a fighting position. The siege towers supposedly help scale adjacent walls. But the dysfunction is that the written description notably lacks any built-in features like stairs, trapdoors or ladders, or any way to get people into the roof section that's easier than simply climbing the wall.


On one hand, the designers definitely intended there to be some easy way to the top. On the other hand, siege towers like this still have some use; you can climb up out of enemy arrow-range. Sure, you can only get a few people onto the tower, but historically siege towers were used to get high ground for archers more often than they were used for escalade.

It's not _not_ dysfunctional, but it's less dysfunctional than it seems! (And it's a decent excuse to point out fun historical trivia.)





> Stormwrack's _dark tide_ spell has issues.  First, there's the already known type of dysfunction that its area can be considerably larger than its range.  Area and range are matched at CL 56 if you center the spell on yourself.  Second, well ... It's a Necromancy spell, so what the designers probably intended was changing *existing* water with negative energy.  But that's not what they wrote.  Instead, they describe what's clearly a Conjuration effect that *creates* a mile-wide sphere of water. (Rough sphere, depending on obstacles -- the area is a spread.)  The text says "creating a tide of blackwater that spreads out ... until it fills the entire area."
> 
> Even constrained by the spell's Long range, that's a lot of BFC, and it's hard for casters to overcome because if you're casting with V components then you're not holding your breath.  It's also a lot of drowning death when used against mundane cities or armies.  Or death by pressure and hypothermia from the normal rules for deep and cold water, take your pick.
> 
> So, eh, it's a weak dysfunction, just "this spell is in the wrong school".  I mostly wanted to highlight another piece of unintended RAW silliness.





> It says it creates a tide. A tide is a movement, not a substance.


Let's check the source!



> You infuse the target area with the enervating essence of the blackwater depths, creating a tide of blackwater that spreads out from the designated point of origin at a rate of 100 feet per round until it fills the entire area.


On one hand, there's a pretty good argument to be made that "creating a tide" doesn't involve creating new water. On the other hand, "tide" is often used to refer to certain quantities of water rather than just movements of water (most unambiguously, tide pools), so there's an argument to be made that it creates more water to fill the sphere. I wouldn't accept it at my table, but this thread is about RAW, not RAI, and there's a RAW argument.

What's not arguable, however, is that this spell was _intended_ to conjure half a trillion gallons of water. That kind of apocalyptic effect is reserved for 9th-level spells, and if a spell is intended to drown air-breathing casters, it would mention something about that. It's obviously intended to turn existing water into blackwater, so an interpretation that turns it into a mass-water-conjuration effect is dysfunctional.





> Oh huh, I completely forgot monstrous humanoids can't become lycanthropes. Giants being valid (on that note, has anyone ever _used_ lycanthropic giants?) threw me off.


They're useful if you want to make a were-elephant or something. Or you could ignore that rule about the base creature and base animal needing to be almost the same size.

----------


## Metastachydium

> I used weregoat ettin as random encounter once. )





> They're useful if you want to make a were-elephant or something. Or you could ignore that rule about the base creature and base animal needing to be almost the same size.


In actual fact, the base animal must be a predator, scavenger or omnivore and although the former are infamous for their ability to eat anything, technically speaking, neither goats, nor elephants qualify on account of being herbivores. Huge(+) animals that are eligible include big snakes, some dinosaurs, orcas, cachalot whales, giant crocodiles and the like.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> In actual fact, the base animal must be a predator, scavenger or omnivore and although the former are infamous for their ability to eat anything, technically speaking, neither goats, nor elephants qualify on account of being herbivores.


Oh yeah. Man, there are some dumb restrictions on lycanthropy.

----------


## ShurikVch

> In actual fact, the base animal must be a predator, scavenger or omnivore


_Oriental Adventures_ includes, among other monsters, Myin-Kawei, which is... Werehorse
Also, Weresheep flaw

----------


## RSGA

> Arcane Spell Failure only applies to spells with Somatic components, and is the only constraint affected by Armored Mage. Heavy shields prevent you from using that hand for material or somatic components independently of ASF. Arcane Channeling requires a weapon to deliver the attack. Consequently, the only conditions where the Duskblade's 7th-level improvement of Armored Mage applies to their Arcane Channeling is if they are doing it with a Shield Bash, an Unarmed Strike, a book-dived probably-Exotic hands-free weapon, or have more than two arms.


Wouldn't it also apply if the Duskblade has an Animated heavy shield since Animated notes that while you have a free hand to use you still take penalties associated with use and lists ASF? This is both a big and a small circumstance to me.

----------


## St Fan

I certainly mentioned this already, but I'm not sure it was in such a thread... anyway:

The Cerebral Hood symbiont from the _Fiend Folio_ covers the face of its host facehugger-style and insert its tail inside the throat. Among other benefit, this symbiont makes the host immune to gas, including inhaled poison and disease, since it is basically breathing in his stead...

Just a little problem with that: the Cerebral Hood is an aberration, thus a living being, and nowhere it is stated to be immune to gas or poisons itself. Hence, if you're trying to use it to protect yourself from a toxic environment, the rather weak symbiont is going to die sooner or later, leaving then the host to fend for himself.

----------


## Venger

> In actual fact, the base animal must be a predator, scavenger or omnivore and although the former are infamous for their ability to eat anything, technically speaking, neither goats, nor elephants qualify on account of being herbivores. Huge(+) animals that are eligible include big snakes, some dinosaurs, orcas, cachalot whales, giant crocodiles and the like.


If you had a mind for a nontraditional lycanthrope, the division between herbivores and carnivores is not as binary as most laypeople think. Goats, elephants, deer, cows, etc can and do eat anything that's small, weak, and slow enough for them to catch on occasion.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> If you had a mind for a nontraditional lycanthrope, the division between herbivores and carnivores is not as binary as most laypeople think. Goats, elephants, deer, cows, etc can and do eat anything that's small, weak, and slow enough for them to catch on occasion.


On one hand, yes, basically every "herbivore" is technically an omnivore. On the other hand, the fact that the rulebook distinguishes "predator, scavenger, or omnivore" as separate categories from "animal" indicates that it's using a broader, more colloquial definition of "omnivore," one that covers boars and bears but not every grazing animal on the planet.

Just be honest and say you're breaking the dumb rule.

----------


## loky1109

I think it's some sort of natural selection. To spread out lycanthrope should be able to reproduce itself. They reproduce via infection through saliva-blood way. Base animal should be able to do so behaviorally. For example horses bite humans often, elephants... I don't think so.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

1.) Plenty of herbivorous animals bite, and plenty of scavengers only bite dead animals. (Undead werevultures arising from corpses bitten by werevultures would be cool, but that's not how the rules work.)

2.) If that was the idea, wouldn't it make sense to restrict the base animal to creatures with bite attacks, rather than by diet? Not perfect, but it's a closer approximation. I'm pretty sure it's just a genre thing; werewolves and wererats are scary/creepy in a way wererabbits and werecows aren't.

----------


## ShurikVch

Harper Paragon PrC (_Player's Guide to Faerûn_) got Aura of Good class feature:



> The power of the characters aura of good is equal to her Harper paragon level. If she has the aura of good ability from another class, levels of that class stack with her Harper paragon levels for the purpose of this ability.


The problem there is: among the prerequisites for this PrC are



> *Feats:* Sacred Vow (_Book of Exalted Deeds_), Vow of Obedience (_Book of Exalted Deeds_).


Both Sacred Vow and Vow of Obedience are [exalted] feats, and



> A character with at least one exalted feat radiates an aura of good with a power equal to her character level (see the _detect good_ spell), as if she were a paladin or a cleric of a good deity


Thus - not just this class trying to give the character something which they would already have just from the prerequisites, but even shortchanging at doing it (because "Character level" > "Class level")

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

By RAW, that just makes a Harper Paragon with non-paladin/cleric/HarPar levels slightly harder to detect with _detect good_. It's dysfunctional, but it's not as _consequential_ a dysfunction as you're describing.

----------


## ShurikVch

> By RAW, that just makes a Harper Paragon with non-paladin/cleric/HarPar levels slightly harder to detect with _detect good_. It's dysfunctional, but it's not as _consequential_ a dysfunction as you're describing.


So, you think it actively reducing the strength of existing Aura of Good?
Are you sure?
I mean - if it's from the feats rather than class features...

Noticed: Aura of Good as class feature required for Triadic Knight PrC.
I thought it could be a niche use for HarPar's Aura of Good - but then noticed it also required Initiate of Ilmater, Torm, or Tyr - all of which are available only to clerics or paladins...
Is Aura of Good CF a redundant prerequisite there?

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

> So, you think it actively reducing the strength of existing Aura of Good?
> Are you sure?
> I mean - if it's from the feats rather than class features...


AFAIK, there isn't a specific ruling on how multiple rules that change how your alignment auras interact, because there aren't a lot of rules like that. But since Harper Paragon's modification comes from a class feature an exalted feats' from a general rule covering several feats, and since the Harper Paragon _requires_ exalted feats to enter, it feels like HP's class feature is more specific than the exalted feat rules, and specific trumps generic.

----------


## ShurikVch

> AFAIK, there isn't a specific ruling on how multiple rules that change how your alignment auras interact, because there aren't a lot of rules like that. But since Harper Paragon's modification comes from a class feature an exalted feats' from a general rule covering several feats, and since the Harper Paragon _requires_ exalted feats to enter, it feels like HP's class feature is more specific than the exalted feat rules, and specific trumps generic.


I mean:
HarPar AoG = class levels + levels in any other classes which give AoG
Exalted feat AoG = levels in any classes, period

For me, it looks like HarPar *gives* AoG - rather than *sets* it

I mean: if they really wanted for HarPar to reduce the existing AoG intensity - they kinda should be more direct about it

Personally, I'm sure they just forgot [exalted] feats give AoG too...

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

Obviously, but this isn't a thread for dysfunctional _intent_, but for dysfunctional _rules_. And I don't think there's any distinction between "giving" and "setting" an aura.

It sounds like you're saying that _detect good_ (and similar spells) detects the strongest aura provided by various features a character has, which suggests that features that give a character _no_ alignment aura would do nothing, since there's still a positive aura to detect. I feel that this interpretation is in error, and not just because it makes this one example ridiculous. Characters don't have "multiple alignment auras"; they have abilities which influence how one specific spell (and derivative effects) responds to them.

----------


## Venger

Sword of conscience deals variable amounts of wis and cha damage to evil creatures. Like other spells keyed off detect evil, it has a chart that inflicts more damage to certain types of creatures. Footnote 1 says elementals, undead, and outsiders have their own entry on the table. Undead do not have their own entry on the table. So they just take the small amount of damage like any other generic evil creature.

----------


## Frostmoon

> Sword of conscience deals variable amounts of wis and cha damage to evil creatures. Like other spells keyed off detect evil, it has a chart that inflicts more damage to certain types of creatures. Footnote 1 says elementals, undead, and outsiders have their own entry on the table. Undead do not have their own entry on the table. So they just take the small amount of damage like any other generic evil creature.


I don't think that's exactly right: undead actually are listed in the table, they're just listed with elementals, for some unknown reason. Under the "Evil Elemental" section of the table, the 1d6 damage bar lists "2 or lower or undead", which means...I guess undead always take 1d6? Maybe? Or they count as elementals for this, and they scale the same way...? BoED is weird.

----------


## Venger

Oh hey you're right. 

You know what I think it is? I think "or undead (HD)" was actually supposed to be left aligned under "evil elemental," which is why there's that huge gap of white space underneath it but they screwed up and put it under "2 or lower" instead. I believe the intent was probably for undead to take damage like evil elementals. Still a little weird.

----------


## GreatWyrmGold

Another thing about that spell:



> The creature regains lost abilities normally; they do not automatically return when the spell's duration expires.


The duration is Instantaneous. Does the author of that clause think _fireball_ damage reverts when the spell's duration expires, or was there some weird chain of edits which involved a stage where this was a reasonable thing to specify?

----------


## Venger

I think the writer was probably thinking of penalties and didn't understand it was discrete from damage.

----------


## Inevitability

Sometimes the rules state what the rules already state, and BoED was in a period of change from 3.0 to 3.5: I can totally understand putting a redundant rule in there for clarity and to make sure it holds up to potential reworkings of ability damage.

----------


## Beni-Kujaku

> Oh hey you're right. 
> 
> You know what I think it is? I think "or undead (HD)" was actually supposed to be left aligned under "evil elemental," which is why there's that huge gap of white space underneath it but they screwed up and put it under "2 or lower" instead. I believe the intent was probably for undead to take damage like evil elementals. Still a little weird.


Agreed. Even more probable considering this is basically the same table as Detect Evil, only with Evil Elemental added in the second line. Up to the "Some characters who are not clerics may radiate an aura of equivalent power. The class description will indicate whether this applies." which makes not much sense in this case but probably indicates that paladins get damaged as much as clerics, and that the spell is supposed to run on aura strength. 2d8 Wisdom to a paladin might very well render them insane.

----------


## ShurikVch

It's, technically, possible to scribe a scroll of a _Dread Word_ spell (_Book of Vile Darkness_).



> The caster speaks a single unique word of pure malevolence - a powerful utterance from the Dark Speech (see Chapter 2).





> The Dark Speech has no written form. It cannot be transliterated into another language's written form without losing all of its meaning and power.


The same problem arise when Spellhoarding Dragon uses their Spellcatching SQ on a _Baleful Utterance_ invocation to add it to their Spellhoard. (DM can invoke the "can't counterspell SLA" clause - but it's dysfunctional in its own right)

----------


## Inevitability

> It's, technically, possible to scribe a scroll of a _Dread Word_ spell (_Book of Vile Darkness_).


Even if a spell scroll is a full description of the somatic and verbal components of a spell (dubious assumption), ultimately the Dark Speech still has phonemes, right? "Make these specific sounds in this order" should work as a description of the verbal component, it's not a transliteration because it doesn't try to preserve meaning.

----------


## ShurikVch

> Even if a spell scroll is a full description of the somatic and verbal components of a spell (dubious assumption), ultimately the Dark Speech still has phonemes, right? "Make these specific sounds in this order" should work as a description of the verbal component, it's not a transliteration because it doesn't try to preserve meaning.


Well, firstly: transliteration communicates not what the word means, but merely how it sounds (more or less accurate)
Secondly, the Dark Speech is highly magical: say, you will die (without any save and regardless of protective magic) if try to pronounce the Dread Word without actually casting the _Dread Word_ - thus, I wouldn't be so sure about the "_Make these specific sounds in this order_"...


One more dysfunction - _Crawling Eye_ invocation (_Complete Mage_):



> You can't cast most invocations or spells through the eye, but any spells or invocations that affect your sense of sight such as _devil's sight_, _all-seeing eyes_, or _detect magic_ function through the eye as though it was still attached.


_Detect Magic_ don't depend on sight - blind or eyeless creatures are able to use it just fine, as well as "normally"-sighted creatures during the restricted visibility. Heck, it's even able to penetrate solid barriers...

----------


## Inevitability

> Well, firstly: transliteration communicates not what the word means, but merely how it sounds (more or less accurate)
> Secondly, the Dark Speech is highly magical: say, you will die (without any save and regardless of protective magic) if try to pronounce the Dread Word without actually casting the _Dread Word_ - thus, I wouldn't be so sure about the "_Make these specific sounds in this order_"...


Then maybe in the scroll's instructions there's a big obvious gap where some word of power is clearly _supposed_ to go, and anyone who knows dark speech can fill it just as easily as an English-speaker can fill the gap in the sentence "The angry man's mouth was slightly open, showing how he was gnashing his ____."

That doesn't explain why a caster unfamiliar with dark speech can use the scroll, but honestly I've got half a mind to say they _can't_: the rule that you can cast spells from scrolls is trumped by the rule that Dark Speech, specifically, kills untrained speakers.


Semi-related: it's kind of funny how this spell and the Power Word line can be cast perfectly well with the Silent Spell feat applied.

----------


## St Fan

I am bothered by the fact that some wondrous magic items require a _permanency_ spell during creation (notably, the _broom of flying_ and _carpet of flying_). This, for two reasons:

Firstly, the great majority of permanent magic items don't need such a spell, the process of making them a magic item in the first place is sufficient to make them last indefinitely. Why would a couple need _permanency_ on top?

And secondly, _permanency_ is *one spell that have an XP cost!* Except this cost is variable, depending on the level of the spell usually targeted. What is this value for a magic item creation? And should it be paid with every casting of the spell, i.e. once per day of crafting? It takes 17 days to make a _broom of flying_, and up to 60 days for the largest _carpet of flying_. Are we supposed to pay 2500xp per day in addition to the normal crafting cost?

----------


## ShurikVch

> I am bothered by the fact that some wondrous magic items require a _permanency_ spell during creation (notably, the _broom of flying_ and _carpet of flying_). This, for two reasons:
> 
> Firstly, the great majority of permanent magic items don't need such a spell, the process of making them a magic item in the first place is sufficient to make them last indefinitely. Why would a couple need _permanency_ on top?
> 
> And secondly, _permanency_ is *one spell that have an XP cost!* Except this cost is variable, depending on the level of the spell usually targeted. What is this value for a magic item creation? And should it be paid with every casting of the spell, i.e. once per day of crafting? It takes 17 days to make a _broom of flying_, and up to 60 days for the largest _carpet of flying_. Are we supposed to pay 2500xp per day in addition to the normal crafting cost?


You pay no extra XP cost for _Permanency_ (how you even calculated that "2500 XP"?  :Small Confused: )
Creating Wondrous Items:



> If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, *nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item*. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the items creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

----------


## St Fan

> You pay no extra XP cost for _Permanency_ (how you even calculated that "2500 XP"? )
> Creating Wondrous Items:


Okay, at least that part is covered... I got confused with the creation of scrolls or wands, where a cost of components or XP is integrated.

(2500 XP is the cost for making permanent a 5th-level spell, such as _overland flight_.)

----------


## Bucky

(PF) has a bit of an inconsistency regarding the Bolt Ace gunslinger archetype and gun rarity categories.

In a "No Guns" campaign, guns don't exist. You can still use the Bolt Ace archetype of the gunslinger class, which uses crossbows instead of guns.
In a "Very Rare Guns" campaign, guns exist but the gunslinger class doesn't. So you can't be a Bolt Ace.

In other words, in any given campaign world, there can be Bolt Aces before guns are invented. But as soon as a single gun exists anywhere in the world, they lose their powers until firearms become sufficiently common that ordinary gunslingers emerge.

----------


## ShurikVch

> (2500 XP is the cost for making permanent a 5th-level spell, such as _overland flight_.)


 :Small Confused:  The last time I checked, _Permanency_ cost was case-by-case (and _Overland Flight_ is not even on the list of suitable spells)

----------


## goodpeople25

> The last time I checked, _Permanency_ cost was case-by-case (and _Overland Flight_ is not even on the list of suitable spells)


It's listed as tables but all the spells on it use the same formula* you can reverse engineer. The spell in the PHB (pg. 260) does leave additional spells to be added up to the DM and discoverable through the spell research rules.   


*X = spell level of target spell to be made permanent. Minimum 1.
Minimum CL = X + 8
XP cost = X*500 

I borrowed the formula from a previous GitP thread from over a decade ago. I've checked a good number of them and found only one outlier so far in gust of wind which was the right level in 3.0 where the spell also exists.

----------


## St Fan

> It's listed as tables but all the spells on it use the same formula* you can reverse engineer. The spell in the PHB (pg. 260) does leave additional spells to be added up to the DM and discoverable through the spell research rules.


Yup, I thought everybody was aware of that. It's pretty obvious when you look at the _permanency_ tables.

Okay, this one I'm not sure that it's really dysfunctional, or if I'm missing something:

The spells  _persistent blade_ and _Grazt's long grasp_ both create something capable of attacking foes at a distance (a dagger of force in the first case, the caster's disembodied hand in the second). The spells also specify that they can be used to flank enemies.

Problem, in both cases the created attacker is likely of tiny size; tiny creatures have a natural reach of 0ft; opponents with a reach of 0ft cannot flank.

----------


## Bucky

Pathfinder's Pack Flanking feat does literally nothing under normal circumstances due to a dysfunction.

One of its prerequisites is "ability to acquire an animal companion".

Its benefit applies "When you and your companion creature have this feat..."

You can take the feat just fine, but your animal companion can't because it can't have its own animal companion, so it does nothing.

There are situations where an animal companion can get it as a bonus feat ignoring prerequisites. But it's dysfunctional if you try to simply include it in your build.

----------


## Bucky

We already have bleeding oozes as a dysfunction in Pathfinder. But it's worse in 3.5. Crossposted from another thread, several sources of bleeding can make anything bleed regardless of whether that thing has blood to lose:



> 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:
> (Bone Ooze)(Chain Golem])(Desmodu Guard Bat)(Fleshraker (Knife Fiend))(Master of Chains PrC)
> 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!..


Incorporeal creatures appear to be immune because bleeding isn't a magic weapon, though.

----------


## Monarch Dodora

While we're on the subject of oozes, they're also not immune to the sickened or nauseated conditions. Apparently they can feel stomach distress even without stomachs.

----------


## RSGA

I guess that's what happens when the meal's too basic.

----------


## ShurikVch

> We already have bleeding oozes as a dysfunction in Pathfinder. But it's worse in 3.5. Crossposted from another thread, several sources of bleeding can make anything bleed regardless of whether that thing has blood to lose:


Little fun fact: they tried to fix it for the Bat:



> Desmodu Hunting Bat: Animal; 5 ft./5 ft.; Hide +12, Listen +13, Move
> Silently +9, Spot +13; Dodge, Weapon Finesse; LA ; Creatures immune to
> critical hits are immune to the wounding effects of bite attack. Replace blindsight
> with blindsense.


But they messed it: Desmodu Hunting Bat don't have wounding attack; Desmodu Guard Bat, on the other hand, ...




> Incorporeal creatures appear to be immune because bleeding isn't a magic weapon, though.


Fleshraker's Wounding Weapon is (Su), and Superior Spiked Chain may be magical?..

----------


## Inevitability

The Dragon Totem feat says this:




> Choose one kind of true dragon as your totem. You gain resistance 5 to the type of energy associated with it.


Taking it qualifies one for the Dragon Rage feat, which says:




> When you enter a rage or frenzy, your natural armor bonus improves by +2. In addition, for the duration of your rage or frenzy you gain resistance 10 to the energy type associated with your dragon totem (total resistance 15 while raging).


Except energy resistances don't stack, as per the rules compendium:




> Multiple sources of resistance to a certain energy type dont stack with each other. Only the highest value applies to any given attack.

----------


## Remuko

> The Dragon Totem feat says this:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking it qualifies one for the Dragon Rage feat, which says:
> 
> 
> 
> Except energy resistances don't stack, as per the rules compendium:


is that really dysfunctional? sounds like just a case of specific (the feat) trumping the general rule of such not stacking.

----------


## goodpeople25

> is that really dysfunctional? sounds like just a case of specific (the feat) trumping the general rule of such not stacking.


If so it would be because the feat says the total is 15 while raging which implies stacking but doesn't specifically mention that it does. 
And that type of wording (instead of gain resistance blank X) as a specific rule can cause it's own issues/dysfunctions since those general rules not only disallows stacking but allows the highest value to apply.

----------


## Remuko

> If so it would be because the feat says the total is 15 while raging which implies stacking but doesn't specifically mention that it does. 
> And that type of wording (instead of gain resistance blank X) as a specific rule can cause it's own issues/dysfunctions since those general rules not only disallows stacking but allows the highest value to apply.


idk that specific feat says its 15 (10 from it and 5 from its prereq feat) i dont see how it would cause dysfunction. it works how it says because it says it does. yes it ignores the general rule, but it effects nothing but when you have both feats because the general rule covers all other cases except this extremely specific one.

----------


## goodpeople25

> idk that specific feat says its 15 (10 from it and 5 from its prereq feat) i dont see how it would cause dysfunction. it works how it says because it says it does. yes it ignores the general rule, but it effects nothing but when you have both feats because the general rule covers all other cases except this extremely specific one.


It says you get energy resistance 10 then it says that the total resistance is 15. It doesn't stay it stacks or that you get energy resistance 15 just that it is 15. So if you apply specific trump general to it you do get energy resistance 15 which is fine in a vacuum and a valid way to apply the spell.

How it then applies to other instances of energy resistance could still be considered dysfunctional however since you overwrote/bypassed the rules that govern it. 

Of course you can just say it gives resistance 15 with no issues but that's not a case of specific trumps general.

----------


## Remuko

> It says you get energy resistance 10 then it says that the total resistance is 15. It doesn't stay it stacks or that you get energy resistance 15 just that it is 15. So if you apply specific trump general to it you do get energy resistance 15 which is fine in a vacuum and a valid way to apply the spell.
> 
> How it then applies to other instances of energy resistance could still be considered dysfunctional however since you overwrote/bypassed the rules that govern it. 
> 
> Of course you can just say it gives resistance 15 with no issues but that's not a case of specific trumps general.


yes it says the total resistance is 15 which is the same thing. it says "your total resistance is 15" so it is. that the specific rule from the feat. it feels like one would have to be willingly taking the most obtuse reading to think it says otherwise.

----------


## goodpeople25

> yes it says the total resistance is 15 which is the same thing. it says "your total resistance is 15" so it is. that the specific rule from the feat. it feels like one would have to be willingly taking the most obtuse reading to think it says otherwise.


Yes exactly. Your resistance is 15 when raging with the feats and that's great until you have resistance 30 or something. 

That's if you use specific trumps general (or are you using an "obtuse reading" of what that means?) over the stacking rules. If you rule that it gives resistance 15 like the brackets says and not resistance 10 then it doesn't have that problem but isn't specific trumps general.

----------


## Remuko

> Yes exactly. Your resistance is 15 when raging with the feats and that's great until you have resistance 30 or something. 
> 
> That's if you use specific trumps general (or are you using an "obtuse reading" of what that means?) over the stacking rules. If you rule that it gives resistance 15 like the brackets says and not resistance 10 then it doesn't have that problem but isn't specific trumps general.


i just think the simplest solution is the correct one. the feat says you have 15 and says its 10 + the 5 from the prereq feat (tho says so indirectly, its still clear) and since it says you have 15 with these you do. obviously if you had a magic ring that gives 30 it would overlap not stack since it would use the general rule, and someone would be much less inclined to was resources on getting something like that if they already have resistance from those feats.

----------


## loky1109

Widowmaker (Large vermin):



> *Steed (Ex)* Widowmakers take instruction well and are easy to train. Treat a widowmaker as a magical beast with Intelligence 3 for the purpose of Handle Animal checks.


Handl Animal description:



> *Special:* You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but DC of any such check increases by 5.


Yeah, very easy to train...

----------


## Inevitability

> Widowmaker (Large vermin):
> 
> Handl Animal description:
> 
> Yeah, very easy to train...


Easy to train _for beast heart adepts_, obviously.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## loky1109

> Easy to train _for beast heart adepts_, obviously.


Speculations? )))

----------


## St Fan

I can't help but notice that _animate dead_ and most other spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor...

But the Fell Animate metamagic feat, on the other hand, has no prerequisite. Meaning even a good divine caster barred from casting Evil spells by his faith can still animate zombies this way.

The rules really should be more consistent on whether creating undead is an evil act or not.

----------


## Bucky

> The rules really should be more consistent on whether creating undead is an evil act or not.


AFAICT it's still an evil act to create undead with Fell Animate, but the spell itself isn't powered by [Evil].

In other words, it's not evil to cast a Fell Animate spell in a way that doesn't animate anything.

----------


## Inevitability

> AFAICT it's still an evil act to create undead with Fell Animate, but the spell itself isn't powered by [Evil].





> Unliving corpsescorrupt mockeries of life and purity
> are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
> heinous crimes against the world that a character can
> commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
> good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
> world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.


Book of Vile Darkness is pretty explicit about undead creation, regardless of the reasons and purposes, being evil.

----------


## St Fan

Either this spell is dysfunctional, or there's something I don't get...




> False Lie
> 
> Illusion (Glamer)
> *Level:* Bard 2
> *Components:* V, S, M
> *Casting Time:* 1 standard action
> *Range:* Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
> *Effect:* One creature
> *Duration:* 1 hour/level
> ...


A penalty to Sense Motive, in normal circumstances, makes the subject more likely to believe what's said to him, not less.
And if the subject is not lying, then the subject makes no roll with the Bluff skill... so how can you tell then that the Sense Motive check was a "failure"? Again, usually, a character who rolled high on Sense Motive versus someone not lying can tell himself "Either he's honest, or he's a very good liar...", or just conclude he can't tell either way if the Sense Motive check was low.

Besides, this is supposed to be a negative spell, but what is stopping the silent type (who otherwise leave the speaking to others) who specialize in using feint in combat to receive the spell and inflict a big penalty against anybody trying to see through the feint?

----------


## loky1109

I saw somewhere (maybe PHB 3.0 ?) Sense Motive DC 20 to understand that you are being told the truth.

----------


## Chronos

If there is a rule like *loky1109* describes, then the spell works.

If there's not, then the Sense Motive skill by itself is dysfunctional, even without this spell.

Scenario:  NPC is telling you something, and is in fact honest.
PC:  "Do I think he's telling the truth?"  <rolls Sense Motive, gets a high result>
DM:  "Yeah, you think he's telling the truth."

This certainly seems like something that should be possible, but how?

Anyway, however that works, it's less likely to, with the False Lie spell.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> I saw somewhere (maybe PHB 3.0 ?) Sense Motive DC 20 to understand that you are being told the truth.


The "Hunch" function of Sense Motive lets you "get the feeling that someone is trustworthy. " Is that what you were thinking of?

In any event, _false lie_ would make it harder for someone to use that feature to get a feel for the subject, which I suppose could make people less willing to trust the subject. It's definitely a bad spell, in no small part because it's useful for feinting than for social shenanigans, but I don't think it's dysfunctional.

----------

