Rules that never made sense to you?

[Infiniti2000]

(Ok, I'm cheating with Lesser Globe of Invulnerability dropping ...

Cheating because you're walking with a non-moving spell? Or, cheating because if you cast this non-moving spell after walking, it doesn't suppress the already-up artificer buff spells?

 

[ivocaliban]

I've never cared for the Leadership feat, personally. The idea of having followers based on a formula just doesn't appeal to me. I think leadership should simply be natural for individuals with enough ability, charisma and experience. While the feat might provide decent guildlines for creating NPCs, I almost never laden an NPC baddie with Leadership...even if he has a dedicated henchman (cohort) and followers. I just assume that leaders with enough points in Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate rule by their skills alone.

Speaking of which, I've always found it odd that Intimidation is a Charisma based skill. Generally speaking some of the scariest humanoids (orcs, ogres, hill giants, trolls) are going to be far less intimidating than a 1st level gnome bard. Whoever decided this rule obviously never attended a junior high gym class. I certainly understand the concept behind it, but it seems to fail in the area of common sense.

 

[SlagMortar]

Intimidate isn't just about scaring, it's about scaring someone into doing what you want them to do. If you want someone to quietly surrender so as not to alert anyone else, but you scare them into running away screaming, you just failed your intimidate roll. It's a communication skill, which is why it is charisma.

 

[Drawmack]

Actually, the rules would disallow you to get your 1st and 2nd degree black belts at the same time. You cannot advance more than one level at a time. I hope you'd agree that a black belt is closer to the concept of a level than a feat, right?

Yes, however when I attempted to use something I felt was a closser match with college classes (Calc I & Calc II) in another thread I was lambasted that we were not discussing college classes, so I brought it closser to DnD. Now I'm being told this example is too close to leveling. So I'll just say that I do not care how you slice the pie, taking Cleave and Great Cleave at the same time is stupid and should not be allowed. Taking anything and its improvement at the same time makes no sense.

 

[javcs]

Yes, however when I attempted to use something I felt was a closser match with college classes (Calc I & Calc II) in another thread I was lambasted that we were not discussing college classes, so I brought it closser to DnD. Now I'm being told this example is too close to leveling. So I'll just say that I do not care how you slice the pie, taking Cleave and Great Cleave at the same time is stupid and should not be allowed. Taking anything and its improvement at the same time makes no sense.

So you'd say I can't take Dodge and Mobility at the same level? (Assuming that in all other aspects, I qualify for Mobility.)

 

[KarinsDad]

Cheating because you're walking with a non-moving spell? Or, cheating because if you cast this non-moving spell after walking, it doesn't suppress the already-up artificer buff spells?

I make those mistakes every time I talk about that spell. Doh!

 

[KarinsDad]

Intimidate isn't just about scaring, it's about scaring someone into doing what you want them to do. If you want someone to quietly surrender so as not to alert anyone else, but you scare them into running away screaming, you just failed your intimidate roll. It's a communication skill, which is why it is charisma.

Schwarzenegger with a nail file is intimidating.

Ghandi with a bazooka is not.

Charismatic leaders do not lead by intimidation. They lead by charm (and truth be told intelligence).

Intimidation has virtually nothing to do with Charisma. It has to do with perceived power.

In fact, Intimidation should be easy to change with spells like Polymorph. The Gnome is not intimidating, but the Troll is. Hence, Strength (and even ugliness if that were an ability) should help with Intimidation. So should obvious wealth and power. Only two sets of individuals are intimidating: powerful people and crazy people. CE creatures should be more intimidating than LG ones, but LG ones should be better at Diplomacy.

Sure, there are a few very rare people who can intimidate with a soft voice or pleasant smile, but that is the minority.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, however when I attempted to use something I felt was a closser match with college classes (Calc I & Calc II) in another thread I was lambasted that we were not discussing college classes, so I brought it closser to DnD. Now I'm being told this example is too close to leveling. So I'll just say that I do not care how you slice the pie, taking Cleave and Great Cleave at the same time is stupid and should not be allowed. Taking anything and its improvement at the same time makes no sense.

To use your college example: often there will be a handful of students who haven't taken the prereq course, and who take a bridging course or just work very hard to get through Calc II as their first course.

The same could be true of a character (typically a fighter, given the two combat feats bought at once) who takes Cleave and Great Cleave together: they have worked extra-hard to go from zero to hero in one fell swoop.

 

[Storm Raven]

Schwarzenegger with a nail file is intimidating.

Ghandi with a bazooka is not.

Charismatic leaders do not lead by intimidation. They lead by charm (and truth be told intelligence).

Or some lead by intimidation. Just walk into a large law firm one of these days. The senior partners are all about intimidation. And they are usually about as physically threatening as a pomeranian.

Intimidation has virtually nothing to do with Charisma. It has to do with perceived power.

And Charisma is all about how well you communicate your power. You could be really powerful, but speak like Michael Jackson, and suddenly you are not going to convince people to do what you want. And begin to look silly every time you talk.

In fact, Intimidation should be easy to change with spells like Polymorph. The Gnome is not intimidating, but the Troll is. Hence, Strength (and even ugliness if that were an ability) should help with Intimidation. So should obvious wealth and power. Only two sets of individuals are intimidating: powerful people and crazy people. CE creatures should be more intimidating than LG ones, but LG ones should be better at Diplomacy.

I wonder just how much phsyical prowess would be perceived as "powerful" by those in a D&D world. That gnome, he could be a powerful wizard, able to blow you up with a gesture. Or a rogue able to slice you to ribbons in a heartbeat with a smile on his face. Sure, you don't know that by looking at him, but conveying that possibility is what the Intimidate skill is for.

Sure, there are a few very rare people who can intimidate with a soft voice or pleasant smile, but that is the minority.

or, alternatively, you just haven't met many. I'd say they are all over the legal and business world.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So I'll just say that I do not care how you slice the pie, taking Cleave and Great Cleave at the same time is stupid and should not be allowed. Taking anything and its improvement at the same time makes no sense.

Perhaps, and for the most part I'll leave you to your opinion. Instead, I'll just offer an idea that might help you accept it better. Gaining a level is not instantaneous. Sure, applying the changes for a new level are instantaneous, but what you've learned that level are not. Consider the karate example you brought up. How many kata do you learn when you go from 1st degree to 2nd degree? Surely more than 1in any particular style? If not at this belt, then I'd say that you learn more than one at at least one belt change. More importantly, do you learn them one at a time or all at once? Hopefully, you learn them one at a time, not unlike feats.