Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[Voadam]

#2 Monte's view

For #2 Mind blank interaction

Here is Monte Cook's response to whether Mind blank protects against True Strike




My first response, upon seeing the question was, "of course not."

As I read through Mind Blank and True Strike, I still thought, "of course not" until I got to the line: "This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects." Oooh. Now it's tough. That's sort of the backstory of what's going on in the True Strike spell.

I can tell you that I don't think it was designer intent for it to work against Mind Blank (no one had thought of it, to be honest). If you were a player in my game and brought this up, though, I'd allow Mind Blank to protect against True Strike.

Monte

 

[Archer]

For most terms there are standard language meaning and there are defined game term meanings.

In defined game terms, armor has 4 characteristics, armor bonus, max dex, check penalty and arcane spell failure chance. "-" is a suffient response for some of those categories.

In general language, anything providing protection could be considered armor. If someone asked me on the street if gauntlets or helmets are armor, I'd say yes, but in a D&D Rules forum the answer is no.

Some people want to house rule that temporary isn't a named bonus type but that's a house rule. Officially, temporary is a non-stackable bonus type.

I like to house rule that Combat Reflexes is per opportunity, so does Monte Cook but in the 2nd printing of the PHB it deletes the word "opportunity" and replaces it with "round." That's about as official as something can be.

 

[Artoomis]

Thanks, Archer.

As far as definitions go, here's another:

Full Plate: This armor consists of shaped and fitted metal plates riveted and interlocked to cover the entire body. It includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, and a visored helmet.

The gauntlets and hemlet are clearly part of the armor.

Just thought I'd point out the hole in your argument on the definition of "armor".

But wait - somewhere in the PHB it states that you can freely exchange the helm or gauntlets that come with armor to magical ones (wondrous items). That muddies the waters up just a bit in your favor.

In any case, I'll admit that in D&D armor could be any of the following, depending upon your argument:

1. A suit of armor with shield, gauntlets and helmet.
2. A suit of armor with gauntlets and helmet, but not including the shield.
3. A suit of armor not including shield, gauntlets or helmet.
4. A suit of armor including the shield, but not including gauntlets or helmets.

I think #2 follows the letter and intent of the rules most closely, but I'll include all of them in the guide.

Thanks for your input - you made me take a fresh look at this.

If you would like to debate this, I'm willing; just start a new thread for it, okay? I'd rather not have big debates in this thread - it will make it hard to compile the guide, which I am doing partly by gathering responses in this thread.

Thanks.

 

[Artoomis]

Latest update is done. Quite a few changes.

I'm sure I missed some stuff, and a number of items still have nothing in them

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated (I'll even offically acknowledge you in the final document!)

Thanks.

 

[Archer]

12: The rule on DR is that creatures can bypass DR as if its natural weapons were equal to its DR. "-" does not overcome any DR, nor is it overcome by anything. If the designers had meant +6, then they would have said +6.

13: Let the weapon bypass the DR of any evil creature. Either it makes no practical difference or the party is heavily outclassed by their opponent. The paladin gets screwed on his spell list and caster level so we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

19: This was asked of the sage early on and I believe published in one of the older dragon magazines. The answer was the same as best advice. This of course led to many more questions of when do natural armor bonuses stack and when don't they stack. What about wearing a ring of natural armor? Does that increase the base natural armor in the same way?

20: The sage says empower only affects the variable part of the spell. The rules seem pretty clear with the example of the magic missile including the +1 in the 1.5 modification. I would say the rules are right but then empower could end up being better than maximize. I think the official interpretation is that if there is a fixed (non-level dependent) modifier to the variable number then that fixed modifier is increased 50% (ala Bull's Strength) but for ray of enfeeblement, only the 1d6 is modified and the caster level adjustment added on after.

22: You didn't update with the example of the bees and rats.

24: Total defense says you sacrifice all attacks for an AC bonus. Is not an AoO an attack? If you did allow AoO, what would be the to hit penalty?

26: Sage published this response 3-7 issues ago in Dragon.

30: I say extend lengthens the part of highest damage but the damage is not increased over the maximum damage for the spell. Heat metal makes the metal at full heat longer. Creeping cold increases the time maximum damage is dealt. The sage probably says extend does not work of spells of fixed duration like these.

If there are no arguments for/against or other WOTC opinions you don't need to have blank lines in about half the entries.

 

[Artoomis]

Archer - thanks so much for your help. You are making this much easier for me than it might have been.

As for blank entries - the ones that are simply blank are because I haven't researched them yet. If there seem to be no opinions from other DnD deisgners (other than Skip, I mean), then that entry will read "None" so that it is clear, and so that all the entries read the same.

I wish WotC had done that with spells and monsters. It would make things easier to read if it said "none" for some entries instead of them simply not being there.

 

[Artoomis]

Latest update done.

I think we are making pretty good progress for such a large undertaking.

I'm sure I'm missing a few issues, though.

I wish Caliban would contribute to this project. I should think he'd want his opinion included - sometimes in agreement, sometimes in opposition.

I'd love to hear from you, Caliban. I promise to make sure your views are accurately represented.

 

[Voadam]

#2 Mind Blank

You don't have the rules or argument sections filled in on #2 Mind Blank protections.

The SRD description is quoted in my previous post. But here it is again:

"The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about him. In the case of scrying that scans an area that the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all."

Here are some suggestions for the argument sections on #2 Mind Blank protections

Argument For: The spell explicitly lists mind reading and scrying. The "information gathering by divinations" language can be interpreted as only applying to those two types of effects. Protecting against all scrying, mind reading and mind affecting spells for an entire day is very powerful and fits the concept of mind protection and some magical stealth cloaking. Protection from all divinations is overboard.

Argument Against: It says "This spell protects against all ... information gathering by divinations" and even lists wishes and miracles used to gather information. Neither seems to be limited to minds or scrying.

 

[Voadam]

#13

For #13 Paladin's Weapon Bless

Here is the relevant quote from the srd for the rules entry

"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."

I don't know your best advice on this one but I would say it negates all dr on evil creatures.

Argument For: The striking incorporeal evil creatures as a +1 weapon seems a separated second effect from the unqualified negation of damage reduction of evil creatures.

Arguments Against: 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.

 

[Voadam]

# 12 Barbarian's DR

For #12 with Barbarian's DR.

Under the Rules you have "The rule on DR is that creatures can bypass DR as if its natural weapons were equal to its DR. "-" does not overcome any DR, nor is it overcome by anything. If the designers had meant +6, then they would have said +6."

I think the last two sentences should be under Arguments For:

For the rules here are two relevant quotes from the SRD

"For purposes of harming other creatures with damage reduction, a creature’s natural weapons count as weapons of the type that can ignore its own innate damage reduction. The amount of damage reduction is irrelevant."

"Usually, a certain type of weapon-usually a magic weapon-can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. If a dash follows the slash then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction."

So I suggest for Argument Against: A barbarian's natural attacks count as weapons of the type that overcome its own DR and the barbarian's DR is overcome only by attacks that ignore damage reduction, therefore a barbarian's natural attacks should count as ignoring damage reduction.