Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[SpikeyFreak]

13. Does the Bless Weapon spell (Pal 1) bypass any amount of DR on an evil creature? (You could read it as either: Negates all DR on any evil creature or Negates DR as if it was a +1 weapon but only against evil creatures.)

This is not ambiguous.

The spell clearly states that it negates the DR of evil creatures.

I both disagree and agree with both Caliban and totally disagree with KD.

It IS ambiguous. That's why the two of you disagree.

The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus.

Can be read as:

The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures, and is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus.

It is semantically ambiguous.

I think Caliban is right though. It basically lets the weapon be a +1 weapon, but only against evil creatures.

If it is the other way, it breaks the rule about barbarian DR not being negated by anything. An evil barbarians DR would be negated by this spell as KD reads it, but not as Caliban reads it.

I also agree with KD about the "some of these aren't abiguous" thing. I really think you should just present both sides and let the reader decide what is the best way to do it. In doing this, you would also have to mention the sage's rulings because that is what determines whether or not something is a house rule.

--Triad Spikey

 

[Voadam]

underwater fly

So you mean we are not going to have a new thread on "Underwater, the lesser Magic Dead Zone?"

 

[Artoomis]

My document is titled "ambiguous and problem rules."

Frankly, any rule than generates a huge amount of discussion pretty much qualfies, with the exception of rules like Harm where the question is not how it works, but how it should work. I may even include a few of those - currently a few are listed at the bottom of my web page with no discussion.

KD's statements where he considers a rule non-ambiguous are particularly interesting because, in most, if not all, of those cases the opposing side of the argument ALSO claims the rule is non-ambiguous. Those two claims together are pretty much the definition of ambiguous.

Anyway, that's pretty much my working definition - if both sides really think they are correct and that the rules support their position and NOT the other side, that's ambiguity that can only be "officially" corrected with errata. Sage Advice for those items is just that, "advice." For items where no one can really figure out how something works, the Sage "offically" clarifies, and I don't include those kind of items in my document. Quite a few of those can be found in WotC's FAQ.

So I'll march on, including everything I think is helpful for folks to decide between the two positions for themselves.

My biggest concern is that the argument for both sides is accurately and fairly presented.

So my plea for help is:

Help me ensure that I've identified everything

Help me accurately and fairly present both sides of the argument.

Help me identify Sage Advice and any advice from Monte Cook and other from the original ot current WotC team.

And yes, I know I included one or two items that are clearly not ambiguous, but I still felt like I wanted to include them, so they are included. That's why the title is "Ambiguous and Problem Rules"

I care not about identifying a rule as ambiguous or not, or, in point of fact, about categorizing them in any way at all, except perhaps by topic.

I care only about gving some good advice and presenting sound arguments as to whether my advice should or should not be followed. The rest is up to my readers, who I hope will appreciate my efforts and find in it some value.

 

[Virago]

Arcane Runes Press:

I had a longer response to your post, but I'll sum it up:

Note that NONE of the following have been established:

• The "common conception" of the monk in the West includes use of a shield.
• The "traditional conception" of the monk (whatever this means) includes the use of a shield.
• The "historical monk" closest to the PHB concept includes the use of a shield.

The first one seems false beyond question.

The second one is vague. Are we talking about "traditional" Chinese conceptions of a monk? Whose traditional ideas? Do you mean perhaps that in the martial arts world, some styles called "shaolin" styles include the use of a shield?

When you say that use of some shields is relatively common in some "extremely well known" (snicker) martial arts forms in southern China, and that these forms are descended from styles used in the Shaolin temple, you can't actually claim to prove that monks, historically, used them?

One other thing:
Second, the katana is mechanically identical to the masterwork bastard sword. Identical. In fact, in the DMG, they say to simply call your bastard sword a katana in asian settings. Why then are the shields in the core rules restricted to "medieval-style shields"? A rattan shield and a buckler shield would be mechanically identical for game purposes.

When you find a rule in the books about how asian bucklers work, let me know. This is not an argument of whether shields have any place in an OA style campaign.

This argument is about the core rules. This is in every campaign, with every shield. That is the implication of the interpretation of "shields != armor."

Sure, you can hedge with all sorts of house rules or inconsistent interpretations (as Artoomis does) to clarify which shields, to try to keep things meaningful and balanced. But then you're actually suggesting a from-scratch campaign enhancement based on a deliberately incorrect rules reading.

 

[Artoomis]

Virago: (Why do I let myself get sucked into these arguments? )

As I previously stated, it does not matter whether the "traditional" monk used the shield or not.

The actual published rule only states that a monk loses many of his special features if he uses armor. Not "armor or shield;" "armor".

I see it as as stretch to think that the rule includes shields. By the way, my only "inconsistent" rule is that shields should impose the armor check penalty on monk abilities. The literal rule does not actually support me, for the rule on monks is refering to armor, not armor and shields, but, nonetheless, I think it's a good idea. I suppose that part of it might be considered a house rule that meets the intent of the published rule.

And that, my friend, is all I have to say on that subject in this thread. I could probably get sucked into discussing the whole thing over again in another thread, but if I write up the Monk/Shield section in the Guide correctly, we won't need to discuss it again because all the points to be made will be right there.

 

[IceBear]

I see it as as stretch to think that the rule includes shields.

Wow...the English language sure is bad. I see it as a stretch to think the rule DOESN'T include shields. How can two people read the same thing and reach completely different conclusions?

IceBear

 

[gnfnrf]

I would revise #13 "Argument Against" (yes, more about bless weapon) to read:

--
The +1 effective enhancement bonus seems to apply to both striking evil incorporeal creatures and bypassing damage reduction. Also, being able to bypass an evil God, Demon Prince, or Balor's DR with a first level spell (that does other things as well) is way overpowered.
--

I think the symetry is needed because to me, the line clearly reads the other way (though when pointed out, I see the other interpretation).

Also, I think that direct SRD quotes should be in quotation marks in all cases, to avoid paraphrasing ambiguity and confusion.

--
gnfnrf

 

[ruleslawyer]

To go off- (or retro-) topic:

Originally posted by Archer
PHB 277, middle of left column

Damage reduction: A special defense ... but not from energy attacks... Barbarians have damage reduction as a class feature, but theirs is a special type that negates a set amount of damage from any source.

Archer:

I would be willing to be that they didn't mean energy damage. What they meant is that there are no physical attacks that can over-come it, unlike normal x/+y DR.

At least that's my take on the entry.

--Psychic Spikey

Yet the text doesn't say "physical damage"; it says "damage from any source." This is exactly why this issue should go into a topic concerning ambiguous or problem rules; it's relevant to determining whether barbs get to shrug off magic missiles, etc. or not.

 

[Virago]

Artoomis said:
By the way, my only "inconsistent" rule is that shields should impose the armor check penalty on monk abilities.

I know, and this seemed like an attempt to balance things, and it seems reasonable for a DM who allows monks with shields to adopt that restriction.

But I think that because of this inconsistency, you should step back and realize "hey wait, they mean shields and armor when they talk about 'worn armor.'" The only reason people are talking about monks using shields is because of strictly adhering to wording. So it seems silly then to re-interpret the wording a more "reasonable" way -- in the very next sentence of the PHB.

 

[Artoomis]

You got me thinking:

When wearing armor, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor type normally imposes.

Cleary this paragraph is written poorly. 2 possible rewrites:

1.: When wearing armor or using a shield, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor and a shield normally impose.


2: When wearing armor, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor and a shield normally impose.

In number one it is clear that a shield is a no-no, in number two it is clear that a shield is allowed, but arcane spell chance failure applies.

This may not be the best rewrite, but it gave me more stuff to think about for the Guide.