Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[Artoomis]

See

Ambiguous Rules

Sorry I can't include the whole text here - it's obviously way too long for that.

This has a long way to go, obviously, but this is the final format and I await your input. Pick any item you want or give me new ones to include. For modification on any item, please include the item number so I may easily find it.

All new ones must pass the following test to be included:

The rules must be unclear or contradictory.

For the "Rules" section on each item please include page numbers when you can.

For the "For" and "Against" section please state the argument as concisely as possible.

I'll also take advice on what the "Best Advice" section should say. You'll note that this is not the same as saying "what do the rules say" - this is for the "best" way to view a particular issue, with the reasoning in the "Argument For" and "Argument Against" sections.

When I turn this into a printable document (a nicely formatted pdf with some graphics, probably), I intend to have two issues to a page, so that gives you some idea of how much material I am looking for. We'll see what actually happens.

 

[IceBear]

BTW - I never meant to come across as saying a Monk couldn't use a shield. I was only saying a wouldn't let a monk use one without suffering the same penalties as for wearing armor.

IceBear

 

[gamecat]

Haven't you already asked these questions before, Artoomis?

 

[IceBear]

He's not asking them again. It's his compliation of what he believes are the troublesome rules, what the two sides of the debates are, and which one is the best (in his opinion). An applaudable undertaking.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Haven't you already asked these questions before, Artoomis?

IceBear's right - I'm not asking any questions again here, Each of the issues has been discussed at length. I'm looking to compile the results of each of those discussion in a more-or-less permanent place so that everyone can get to it whenever they want.

If any of these happen to be your pet issues, please help me out. I don't really want to have to do all the work myself.

The idea is that DM's can use this as a source for making those tough calls on weird rules - and add predictability to their games by being able to identify those issues up front. They'll have input from the rules, pro and con summaries for the "best" approach, and input from the Sage and other game designers.

Players will be able to have a list to use when entering new games - they'll know what questions to ask.

I usually approach these problems form the point of view of "what do the rules say" because I enjoy that and that's what the rules forum is for, to a large extent. This approach is a little different. It's more like what do the rules and everyone else say, and with all that in mind how might here is some advice on how you might rule in your own game. I present my own advice on each item first, which helps give structure to a brief "pro" and "con" argument.

Maybe that gives a better idea of what I'm trying to do. Hopefully many of you will see enough value in it to help me put it together.

 

[Christian]

Items 20 and 22 appear to be redundant ...

 

[bret]

Items 20 and 22 appear to be redundant ...

As the person who submitted number 22, I have to agree.

The only difference is the phrasing and spell chosen as an example. There are several spells that have a +caster level component to the effects.

Combine the two, choosing the best phrasing. In this case, I don't think we should limit the question to a single spell but rather attempt to derive a general rule.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I'm confused as to the ambiguity with Two-weapon fighting and thrown weapons.

From the description of Heavy Crossbow:
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not reduce these penalties because it represents skill with melee weapons, not ranged weapons. The Ambidexterity feat lets someone avoid the -4 off-hand penalty (-6 primary hand/-6 off hand).

Two weapon fighting is only for melee combat.

--Lurking Spikey

 

[Artoomis]

Duly noted - I took the simple approach for now and eliminated 22 and renumbered the rest of the list; since we haven't gone too far down the bunny trail of troubleshooting by item number yet, I thought it would be safe to do that.

The answer to #20 should make things clear, and will probably make it easy to resate the question as well, if that seems right.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm confused as to the ambiguity with Two-weapon fighting and thrown weapons.



Two weapon fighting is only for melee combat.

--Lurking Spikey

This is item #23.

Two-weapon fighting does have at least one function for thrown weapons - that of being able to draw a second weapon as a free action. Because of that, I'm leaving it in. The basic rule is pretty clear, as you point out. Thanks for the quote, I'll have to put that in there.