KarinsDad said:
My take on the ambiguous rules.
First off, most of these rules are not ambiguous. The book clearly spells out what happens.
I didn't really want to get into this, but I have to disagree here. It doesn't always clearly spell out what happens. I demonstrate later where you think the book clearly says one thing, and I read the same text and reach a different conclusion. (And of course I think my conclusion is the one that is clearly spelled out. )
This is why I haven't really commented on this list of Artoomis's yet. I was involved in most of the debates about these rules the first time around, and just don't have the energy to do it a 5th or 6th time.
So, my take on each of them is based on “my best” literal interpretation of the rules, not on what I think they should be.
Note: I am only going to do the first half. I’ll leave the second half for another time.
I'll comment on your comments, because I'm lazy and you already got the relevent stuff quoted for me.
Ok, my take on each of them in the first half:
1) Buckler w/two handed weapon.
This is not ambiguous.
Just like normal shields cannot be used with two handed weapons, neither can bucklers. The reason bows and two weapon fighting are mentioned is because they are exceptions to that rule. The fact that two handed weapons are not listed as an exception is that they are not.
I think it's clear that you can use a buckler with a 2-handed weapon, but you lose any AC bonus if you attack with the weapon, and I think you would get a -1 penalty on your attack roll. I'm willing to agree that the -1 penalty is ambiguous if you go by a strict semantic reading. (You use a two-handed weapon with your off-hand, but you are wielding an off-hand weapon?)
2. Mind Blank spell and what it blocks. (True Strike? Invisibility?)
This is not ambiguous.
The problem here is that the designer’s intent is different from what is written. It is not ambiguous, it was just incorrectly written. Hence, this should be put in a listed in an Intent section so that DMs can determine if they want to play it as intended, or if they want to play it as written.
I agree that a strict reading of the spell indicates that Mind Blank blocks any divinations about the subject, including True Strike. See Invisibility wouldn't be blocked because it's negating the invisibility spell, not divining information about the subject directly.
I can see where the author's intent might have been to only block scrying and divinations about the subjects mental state or thoughts.
3. Advancement of a paladin's mount. (As an animal or Magical Beast? Any skill points or feats?)
This is not ambiguous.
The book clearly indicates what abilities the Paladin’s mount gets. Just because Masters of the Wild came out with a superior creature does not indicate that the Paladin’s mount should as well. This appears to be a Balance issue for people.
I agree with KD.
4. Monk's use of a shield. (Can you or can you not use one without losing Wis bonus to AC, etc.?)
This is not ambiguous.
The book clearly indicates that a Shield is Armor. Hence, the Monk does not get the use of a Shield without penalty (including the lose of the Wis bonus to AC). This should be on a Variant rule list.
I agree with KD.
5. Number and type of slots for non-humanoid creature magical items (There is a possible conflict between T&B familiar magical items rules and MotW animal magical item rules.)
This is a non-existent rule in core. It is ambiguous because it is not discussed.
I think the simplest solution is to give animals the same as humanoids except where it is obvious that they should not get it. For example, creatures without usable limbs should not be able to use rings, but most can use necklaces. This should be in either an Obscure or a Variant list.
I agree with KD.
6. Haste and the 5-foot step. (Can you get a second 5-foot step with Haste?)
This rule is not ambiguous, but it is extremely obscure. It has been fairly well illustrated that you cannot get a second 5-foot step. It should be on an Obscure list.
I still think that a strict reading of the rules allows a second 5-foot step when
hasted, but I'm admit that I might be biased on this. (I think it helps melee fighters more than wizards, and thus gives them a needed boost when it comes to using the
haste spell. )
So if it's my own house rule, so be it.
7. How does the Fly Spell work when underwater? (Full speed, reduced speed, ot not at all?)
This is not ambiguous.
If the spell does not talk about underwater movement, it is because it is not allowed. Suggestions should be put into a Variant Rule section.
I disagree here. I think the spell grants a 45 speed underwater. (Counted as you automatically making your swim check with a speed of 90.) The spell lets you move in any direction without a visible means of propulsion. I fail to see how water would interfere with this any more than it would with normal movement.
8. What form does the shield spell take - and how do you determine half the battlefield? (Use a line in front of the character or use half the squares around the character?)
This rule is ambiguous.
Either solution will work. It should be put in an Ambiguous section.
I agree that it is ambiguous. I favor the "Three connected squares along one edge of your square" placement. It divides the battlefield in half along that line, you are just on one side or the other, it doesn't go through you.
9. What movement is affected by Expeditious Retreat? (Everything derived from based speed - walk, run, swim, etc.; movement on land only - walk, charge, run, etc.; all forms of movement - fly, etc.?)
This rule is ambiguous due to the phrase “Your speed and maximum jumping distance…”
Literally taken, it allows you to make great leaps with your legs. Hence, any movement form that is based on leaping leg movement should be enhanced. So, this limits it to walk, charge, run, jump. However, since Swim speed is based on walking speed, it is ambiguous as to whether swimming is based on leg movement of “great leaps and bounds”. Other forms of movement (e.g. burrowing and flying) should not be enhanced. It should be put in an Ambiguous section.
I agree that it is ambiguous, although I tend more toward the "It simply doubles your base Speed score" school of thought.
10. Threatening an area while unarmed. (Do you or don't you?)
This is not ambiguous.
The book clearly states that you threaten an area whenever you can make a melee attack. Having an armed attack (such as a Melee Attack, an Improved Unarmed Strike, or a Touch Attack) or an unarmed attack (Unarmed Strike) is irrelevant. These are all melee attack forms.
In fact, page 140 states that unarmed attacks “is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following”.
Since lack of threatening the area is not in that list of exceptions, it is not.
The only rule that disallows you from threatening an area is when you are grappled. This should be on an Obscure list or an Intent list (since the Sage disagrees).
I agree, although I don't think it's Obscure. I think the Sage is wrong on this one.
11. Are gauntlets/helmets part of armor? (Can monks wear them without penalty?)
This is ambiguous.
Gauntlets are both weapons and a portion of armor. Helms are a portion of armor.
It is ambiguous if a portion of armor has the same penalties as a set of armor. In the case of helms, they should not penalize the Monk anymore than a backpack would. Gauntlets are less clear, although they too do not have any form of armor penalties in and of themselves.
Since neither of these give an armor bonus, they probably should not penalize the Monk either. This should be on a Balance list or an Ambiguous list.
I agree with KD, although I've come around to the view that while Guantlets are unarmed weapons, but they are not weapons on the Monk list. If you choose to use them as weapons, you can't use your monk unarmed abilities with them. This is different than the position I originally had on the issue.
Guantlets and Helms are items that can be included with armor, but are not necessarily armor themselves (since they don't have any of the normal armor traits).
12. How does a Barbarian's DR work? (Does a Barbarian bypass another Barbarian's DR?)
This is not ambiguous.
Barbarian DR is totally different then normal DR for creatures or magical items.
It is not the same thing. It has special rules on page 25 of the PHB.
It is unfortunate that the designers gave it the same name, but the mechanic as written is totally different from normal DR and the normal DR rules obviously do not apply to it. It should be on an Obscure list.
I agree with KD. Barbarian DR does not allow a barbarian to bypass a creatures DR.
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.
This could be put on a Obscure list, but I don’t really understand why people think this is not clear. The argument against appears to be a Balance issue, but who cares if you do 10 points of damage to a 500 hit point demi-god with this? If the demi-god is so powerful, it should have a high AC.
I agree that it is not ambiguous, but I think the spell states that it bypasses the DR of Evil creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus, and allows you to hit Evil incorporeal creatures as if has a +1 enhancement bonus.
It's not worded as clearly as it could have been, but I think that's the only reasonable way to read the spell.
This is one of those cases where two people can read the same text and reach completely different conclusions, and both think the text is clear.
14. Can you really use the Violent Thrust option of the Telekinesis spell to throw hundreds of weapons? (Normal examples are Shuriken or Daggers. As I recall, doing it with daggers would result in 250 attacks at d4 damage each.)
This is not ambiguous.
The spell clearly states that it allows this to happen.
However, it is also clear from the spell that the designers intended to limit the power of this spell. They just accidentally had a loop hole. This should be listed under an Intent section.
I agree with KD. I also wouldn't let a player get away with this, instead following the intent of the spell.
15. Do Touch Attacks = weapons for all purposes? (One example - can you Coup de grace with a Touch Attack?)
This is not ambiguous.
The Coup de Grace text clearly states that you must use a melee weapon. Touch Attacks are armed attacks, but they are not melee weapons. This should be on a Variant rule list.
I disagree. A melee touch spell is a melee weapon, just as an unarmed attack is a melee weapon. You can also Coup De Grace with ranged weapons if you are in the next square (as stated in the PHB in the Coup de Grace description).
16. Timestop. (What can and can't be done - what will work and what won't? If hasted, do you get additional partial actions?)
This is not ambiguous.
Time Stop gives you a set number of rounds. Haste gives you a set number of actions per round, even if those rounds exist within the Time Stop spell. Maybe this should go in an Obscure list, but it seems fairly clear.
I disagree. I think it's obscure, but not ambiguous. Here's the way I believe it works:
Haste gives you an extra action before or after your normal action.
Time Stop gives you 1d4+1 rounds of "apparent time" during your normal action.
You get one extra partial action from
haste on the round you cast
timestop, before or after the extra rounds from
timestop, but you don't get any extra partial actions during the
timestop rounds.
