Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[KarinsDad]

Remember that paladins don't get a lot of 1st level spells. At 14th level they get TWO 1st level spells. Saying it is just a first level spell isn't a good argument for paladin-only spells being the weaker of two possible interpretations. A +1 enchancement on a weapon is totally redundant at 14th level, or even at 4-6th level when they first get spells but I think I've already said this before.

I agree. In fact, without bonus spells, a 14th level Paladin only gets 4 spells total which is fewer than a 3rd level Cleric with no bonus spells.

I decided to do the actual math for the auto-crit feature for needing a 2 to hit where the spell doesn’t really help at all, through needing a 20 to hit where it almost doubles the damage for a typical 19-20 x2 or x3 weapon. It results in an average increase of damage of 17.2%.

In other words, if you normally average 6 points of damage on a successful hit, it will increase it to 7. If you normally average 12 points of damage, it will increase it to 14. The weapons for most characters probably fall within this average damage range. In other words, Bless Weapon does +1 to +2 extra points of damage on average using it across the boards against a wide variety of situations, but only against evil creatures.


Divine Favor does +1 damage (and to hit) at Paladin level 4, +2 at Paladin level 12 and +3 at Paladin level 18. And, it basically affects all creatures.

Just looking at the level 4 Paladin +1 to hit and +1 damage for a typical 19-20 x2 or x3 weapon, Divine Favor averages a 9.9% increase in average damage on a successful hit due to the +1 to hit plus it is +1 damage for the +1 damage. So, if you average 6 points of damage, you will do 7.6 average points (versus the 7 of Bless Weapon). If you average 12 points of damage, you will do 14.2 average points (versus the 14 of Bless Weapon).

At 4th level, this is not that much more powerful than the auto-crit feature of Bless Weapon, but it is slightly more powerful. However, it gets even more powerful at 12th and 18th level and it is not limited to evil creatures.


Bless does +1 to hit for multiple characters. So, it is more powerful than the weaker interpretation (since most characters already have magical weapons at class level 4+) once it is cast on two characters (5% increase for two characters vs. 9% increase for one). It becomes much more powerful when cast on more characters (all allies in a 50 foot radius is huge), plus it adds to save bonuses, plus it basically affects all creatures.


Giving Bless Weapon the ability to negate DR against all evil creatures just brings the spell up on par with these other first level Paladin spells. Otherwise, it is considerably weaker. I do not think that all spells of the same level must be equal, but negating the higher DRs is not that overwhelming due to the infrequency at which:

1) The Paladin has the spell memorized (he gets so few spells).
2) His opponent is evil.
3) His opponent has DR 1 or higher (or is incorporeal)
4) The Paladin does not have a magical weapon already which handles that DR.

In the vast majority of situations, one or more of these criteria will not exist. So, this is not that big of a deal with respect to how much power is acquired with the first interpretation.

 

[KarinsDad]

..and that shields give a shield bonus. And a full round action "consumes all your effort during a round."

And "a character with more than one attack per round must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack." Which, in light of flurry of blows, etc., ( they're not just talking about extra attacks from BAB), means that when you're hasted you can't actually take a partial attack action of any kind, since you need to take a full attack action to get more than one attack.

There are a few rules which form a contradiction for the more than one 5' step per round question. They consist of the definition of a 5-foot step and the AoO rules and the fact that you could avoid more than one AoO by doing two 5-foot steps.

If you choose to ignore these because one of them comes from the glossary, that's your choice. Unfortunately, that is the only good overall definition of what a 5-foot step is. Everything else talks about a 5-foot step with relation to the topic at hand (e.g. taking a 5 foot step if an MEA does not involve movement).

Seperately, there is also logical counterargument, which is very strong if you're a literal reader: p. 117 most certainly does not say that "if you take two five foot steps, you must provoke an AoO with both of them."

Agreed. However:

"If your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step),
enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for you moving."

and

"5 foot step: This movement does not provoke an AoO"

logically implies that if you move more than 5 feet in a round, you WILL provoke an AoO from the second 5 foot movement that you made if it too is in a threatened space. Correct?

Nowhere in the game can you move through two threatened spaces in a round and not provoke a movement AoO from the second space unless you have some feat or skill that prevents it.

However, if you provoke an AoO with the second 5 foot movement, it cannot be a 5-foot step since it is provoking an AoO. 5-foot steps do not do that. Hence, the contraction.

If it is not a 5-foot step, but merely 5 foot of movement, it cannot be used with the partial action of haste due to the partial action rules. You can only use a 5-foot step with them, you cannot do 5 foot of normal movement with them and get an MEA, another move, or an action.


I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Artoomis on this (since I originally took the opposite opinion), but a contradiction in the rules is a contradiction. Either you ignore it and take the position that two 5-foot steps can be made, or you realize that the only one 5-foot step per round position does not have the contradiction.

Not only is one 5-foot step per round the intent as you pointed out, but one 5-foot step per round does not have this rules contradiction. The two 5-foot steps per round position does.

So, although obscure, it is fairly straightforward once understood.

 

[IceBear]

You mean like the Water Breathing spell, the Freedom of Movement spell, the Alter Self spell, the drowning rule, the deep water lack of light and increase of pressure rules, and the fast moving water damage rules?

The fact is that there are rules for underwater adventuring in the game. They are limited but they are there, specifically for underwater movement.

Underwater movement in the game is the ability to swim. Period. If you cannot swim, you are at the mercy of the currents. Hence, if the spell does not give you Swimming movement (even indirectly by increasing your base walking speed), you do not get it beyond your normal Swim capability.

Remember, I prefaced all of my answers with "I will take a literal interpretation of the rules".

Granted, there are not rules about certain spells underwater such as Fireball or Teleport. So, the only thing you can do is make a ruling. Personally, going with the literal interpretation, I would rule that these spells work normally underwater because it is magic and magic can defy the laws of physics.

I do not literally rule this way for Fly because they do have underwater movement rules and Fly is a physical movement spell. Since they did not invoke the underwater movement rules for Fly, I rule that you cannot do it, just like you cannot move through the ground (i.e. burrow) with Fly.

Also, you do not automatically get to Swim at half of your base Walking speed. It is dependent on water conditions and your ability to swim. If you miss the roll, you go nowhere. Hence, swimming is not an automatic ability of characters. So, why should it be an automatic ability of the Fly spell if not listed at all?

Now, having said this, I also think that a Telekinesis spell would allow movement through water, even if used to move a character. The reason is that Fly is a “physical speed movement spell” whereas Telekinesis is a spell which moves an object or character, but not by changing the speed of the character and not via the control of the character. A subtle distinction. Remember, the Fly spell itself indicates that it “requires as much concentration as walking, …” and also decreases the Fly Speed of the character based on encumbrance. Hence it uses the Movement Speed and Combat Action rules whereas Telekinesis always moves the character at 20 feet per round, regardless of encumbrance (if it is within the weight limit) and the moving character can still do Full Round Actions, regardless of moving through air or water.

I agree with you that underwater movement “should be” allowed with the spell. I disagree that it is necessarily allowed as written in the book.

This probably should be in an Intent section since the designers just did not think of it when they wrote the spell. Also, this one is debatable due to the lack of them spelling it out, hence, I will change my position and say that it is ambiguous.

I didn't say that there weren't *any* rules on underwater adventuring, I just said that there were very few rules on underwater adventuring - there are no rules for combat underwater in the core books, which is where they might have provided more details on the various spells underwater.

Also, its DUNGEONS and Dragons, so the wording that they chose for spell descriptions and descriptions in general, were based on the concept that the players are walking in an air filled dungeon. Thus, they didn't provide too much details on how the spells would work in other environments.

I guess I see the fly spell as working along the same principles of telekinetic movement. As far as I can tell, the caster just thinks of the direction and speed he wants to go and then he goes that way. Thus, to me, if he is in a thicker medium than air, the basic principle is still the same, but the resistance to movement would be higher and thus the movement would be slower. Since you would allow telekinesis underwater, would you have the object moving at the same speed or a slower speed? Me, I'd have it move at half speed - just like fly. What about leviate? Whould you allow that underwater? Again, I would, I'd just reduce the speed at which things moved as I see it as a lower level fly spell that only allows one direction of movement.

IceBear

 

[Virago]

KD:

If your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step),
enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for you moving."

and

"5 foot step: This movement does not provoke an AoO"

logically implies that if you move more than 5 feet in a round, you WILL provoke an AoO from the second 5 foot movement that you made if it too is in a threatened space. Correct?

No. The first quote does not logically imply "if you move more than 5' in a round, you do provoke an AoO." Logically, the first quote cites ONE example of when you avoid AoOs from moving.

For example, the statement "if you have only one dog, his name is spot" makes no claims positive or negative about what your dogs' names can be if you have two dogs. In this context, the words on p. 117 would say:

"The ways your dog can be named Spot include: ... if you have only one dog, his name is Spot." What if I have two dogs? What is there to say they cannot both be named Spot?

Nowhere in the game can you move through two threatened spaces in a round and not provoke a movement AoO from the second space unless you have some feat or skill that prevents it.

This is sort of assuming the to-prove. "There is nothing else like B, therefore B cannot exist." Literally (and stupidly), the rules say you can take a 5' step with both a partial action and a full round action, and avoid AoOs with both.


I understand the contradiction argument completely. I'm not sure you understood my post. Here's what I said again:

(1) If you assume that the MEA quote on p. 121 is general, you don't need the contradiction argument. Artoomis used it because he decided that the glossary's "a 5' step does not count as a move in combat" means that taking a 5' step would not count as "moving any actual distance during the round" which seems obviously silly. Even if it didn't "count as a move," you still moved some actual distance. Interpreting them super-strictly as non-moves means that "if your entire move for a round is.. (a 5' step)," is actually a rule that makes no sense at all.

(2) If you don't assume the MEA quote is general, there's nothing that says that two magical glossary-entry style 5' steps in a round DO provoke AoOs.

(3) Even if it did, so what? The rules are stupid in so many other cases. Literally interpreting the rules for 5' steps is silly, and a person who claims "only one 5' step! it's in the rules but it's clear!" is exaggerating things quite a bit.

If you want to argue this more, attack points 1 or 2 directly in a way that isn't a mere restatement of the contradiction idea. The point is that even if you do attack 1, the interpretation of the MEA quote as being general is still questionable, because it's not clear at all that it is general when read literally.

So it can never be straightforward.

Finally, yet another counter argument:

(4) There is a hidden assumption in the contradiction argument: namely, it is assumed that if the rules can be interpreted in two ways, one of which is contradictory to other rules, then the non-contradictory way is the "literally meant" way. This may not be true, and there are a few examples of the PHB being glaringly self-contradictory.

In other words, if a conclusion is "the rules as written imply X," then you can't conclude that the rules as written don't imply X just because X contradicts some other statement Y. For all you know, Y could be incorrect. All you have proved is that somewhere, something is in error if the rules want to present a logical system with this interpretation.

So I might argue something like: the rules imply you get two 5' steps with haste but neither avoid AoOs. The glossary entry contradicts this--hence, the glossary entry is wrong. How is this, literally and logically, any different from the contradiction argument? Would I then try to claim that the rules are "obscure, but technically correct"?

 

[Virago]

IceBear on fly:
As far as I can tell, the caster just thinks of the direction and speed he wants to go and then he goes that way.

Then why the heck would wearing medium armor (but still being lightly encumbered) slow you down? This indicates that we are not talking about Superman-style flight. I imagine it as sort of air running or stepping.

Pesonally, I don't think fly improves your walking speed or your wading speed, and so not your swimming speed. It involves moving your body in a way that helps you fly. I think it should give you movement "fly 90 (60 encumbered) (good)," and the reason this isn't stated in the PHB is because the movement type rules simply weren't written yet.

I think it's absolutely certain that you will have to make Swim checks if you fly underwater, regardless.

Another thing that I think is very important to the decision on fly, IMHO, is it's relationship with the 4th level spell freedom of movement, and the Sage's ruling on it in the FAQ. FoM helps very little underwater, and that's a specific function of it! I think however you rule on fly, it should not make freedom of movement pointless as an aid to moving underwater.

 

[IceBear]

Sure being encumbered would impact flying. There is a specific amount of magical engery being used to propell you. If you increase the mass of what it has to move, it would move slower.

As for FoM, it's not made useless by fly, just like in 2nd Edition where items that removed penalties to movement weren't made useless by flying. Basically, I would allow fly to move you at half speed underwater. You would still have attack penalties even under fly. With FoM, then you could fight underwater without penalities and move at your normal flying speed. And to top it off, the Sage agreed that it should work.

Anyway, arguing this is not the point of this thread, and, frankly, after the heated debate from last summer, it's not something I want to restart. Basically, in the past editions, you could use the fly spell underwater and the Sage told me in an email that he couldn't see why it wouldn't work. That's enough for me.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Anyway, arguing this is not the point of this thread, and, frankly, after the heated debate from last summer, it's not something I want to restart.
IceBear

Quite right. I would like to see your best argument put as succinctly as possible so I can include it in the guide. THAT's what this thread is for.

 

[Artoomis]

The latest update is done, bringing me more-or-less up-to-date.

For those who have been helping - a hearty Thank-You. Hopefully you'll notice more of your comments in the Guide. I'm happier with the Guide with each update. Soon it will be a good resource for DMs and players the worlds over! <Insert motivational music here>

 

[Caliban]

According to Time Stop, “you are free to act for 1D4+1 rounds of apparent time”.

If it stated 1D4+1 actions, I would agree with you.

And if it just stated 1d4+1 rounds, I would agree with you.

However, it states 1d4 +1 round of apparent time.

This is important. No actual rounds are passing, you are moving so fast that for you, it seems like 1d4+1 rounds are passing. However, your haste spell is working in real time, not "apparent" time, and is suspended while you are Time Stopped.

Haste states “On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action.” The definition of turn is “The portion of each combat round in which a particular character acts.”

The rounds from time stope aren't "regular actions" because they are taking place during the "apparent" rounds provided by time stop. You are getting several "apparent actions" during the space of one regular action.

So, since you get 1D4+1 rounds, you get 1D4+1 turns: one per “round”. It just so happens that nobody else gets a turn between your turns within those “rounds”.

Again, this sounds like a “should of” rule interpretation, but literally, why would you lose ANY benefits of your 1D4+1 rounds? You do not lose movement actions.
You do not lose standard actions. You do not lose free actions. Why would you lose the extra partial action for being Hasted?

Because only you are affected by the time stop, your haste spell is not. Only one round of the haste spells duration passes while you are taking your extra apparent actions, and you only get one round of benefits. The same would be true of any other spells you might have up.

Do you lose your extra jumping distance when Time Stopped and Hasted? If so, then you can only jump 1.5x as far on 1 of the D4+1 rounds, not all of them.

Yes.

Here, I can understand your interpretation. I just think that literally, a turn is a portion of a round, you get 1D4+1 rounds, hence, you get 1D4+1 turns as well.

Literally, you get 1d4+1 "apparent" rounds, you do not get 1d4+1 normal rounds. That is the crux of the issue.

 

[Artoomis]

Caliban:

Does your answer change any if you caste the Haste AFTER the Time Stop?

(Rhetorical question - while you can do that, none of the effects start until after the Time Stop ends)

I think your argument is a strong one and I've added it to the guide.

If you see anything missing in the guide would you let me know? I'm not looking to have any of the old debates again, just to accurately represent both sides of each argument.

In fact, the Guide is supposed to be able to prevent having the same old arguments time after time - simply refer to the guide and whichever argument you think s the better one (either "For" or "Against").

edit: Typos