Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[KarinsDad]

Well Caliban, I’m glad that we agree for the most part. Almost sounds anti-climatic, eh?

As for the ones we disagree on, I’ll post my reasons and maybe you could let me know why we disagree.

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?)

I think that this is a case of “should be”. I agree with you that this is what should happen. However, I disagree that the rules allow for it. Remember, I prefaced my statements that I was going to take a literal interpretation of the rules.

The Buckler description does not mention two handed weapons. It does, however, list what weapons it can be used with. Hence, like other shields, it cannot be used with one. How could one assume that it could?

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.

Again, a literal interpretation of several rules does prevent this. Thank Artoomis for being kind enough to explain so that a dense person like myself would understand.

The bottom line is that 5-foot steps do not provoke AoOs (see glossary). The AoO rules only allow one 5-foot step per round. So, if you made two 5-foot steps per round and were in a threatened area each time, you would break the AoO rules (effectively).

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.

Again, this is a “how it should work” interpretation. Nothing in the spell indicates that it does this. Nothing in the movement rules indicate that Swimming is based off of Flight speed.

The book is fairly clear on the differences between Flying, Swimming, and even Burrowing (i.e. you cannot use the Fly spell to move through the ground either).

I agree that it is ambiguous, although I tend more toward the "It simply doubles your base Speed score" school of thought.

I concur.

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.

Hmmm.

This again seems to be a “should of” case or possibly a “personal bias” case.

The sentence states two things:

1) “The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and”
2) “is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enchantment”

The first half is fairly succinct and has nothing to do with the second half. Negates means negates.

The second half does not give a +1 enchantment against all evil creatures, only incorporeal ones. Incorporeal creatures as per the DMG need +1 enchantment weapons (as one means) to harm them. So without this portion of the sentence, an incorporeal creature which lost its damage reduction would not be harmed by the weapon. Hence, the need for this portion of the sentence.

I cannot even understand the opposing interpretation. Sorry. What am I missing?

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).

A melee touch spell is an armed attack (PHB 125). It is not a melee weapon. An unarmed attack is mostly indentical to a melee weapon (PHB 140), but it does subdual damage, so it could not coup de grace either.

Where does it state that a melee touch spell is a melee weapon?

There is a difference between a melee attack and a melee weapon, or a ranged attack and a ranged weapon.

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.

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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.

 

[gnfnrf]

The sentence states two things:

1) “The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and”
2) “is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enchantment”

...

I cannot even understand the opposing interpretation. Sorry. What am I missing?

Here's how the opposing interpretation breaks down.

1.) "The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures"

How good is it at doing these things?

2.) "as if it had a +1 enchantment"

If the english language had parenthesis, this is what it would look like.
DR= "negates the damage reduction of evil creatures"
INC= "is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures"
PLUS = "as if it had a +1 enchantment"

Your interpretation looks like:
(DR) + (INC+PLUS)

Mine (and Caliban's) looks like:
(DR + INC) + PLUS

I spelled it out because it took me forever to see the opposing view, so I can understand that you might be having difficulty from the other side.

Anyway...

--
gnfnrf

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's how the opposing interpretation breaks down.

1.) "The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures"

How good is it at doing these things?

2.) "as if it had a +1 enchantment"

Thanks gnfnrf.

I now understand why it is ambiguous.


My personal take is that the first interpretation is almost definitely what was meant (i.e. the interpretation that segregates the two halves at the word “and”). The second interpretation makes the spell a joke for several reasons, especially at higher levels.

1) Say a Paladin has a 50% hit chance against a given evil creature and is using a longsword (magical or not). So, he has a 5% chance of critting. The spell bumps that up to a 10% chance of critting. This is equivalent (in this case) of adding +1 to the crit range (+1.95 if you need a 20 to hit a given AC, +0.05 if you need a 2 to hit), but only against evil creatures, and you do not get any +1 enhancement bonus to the weapon like you do with Magic Weapon. Yawn.

2) The Paladin does not get the spell until either 4th or 6th level. Hence, by the time he gets it, he almost always already has a +1 weapon and will not often gain the benefits against DR 1 or incorporeal evil creatures.

3) Paladins do not have another spell which can take the place of this one once they start to run into +2/?? and higher DR creatures with the exception of Greater Magic Weapon which may or may not work depending the DR and the Paladin level. So, the spell is only real useful (with the second interpretation) for a couple of levels and then, only if the Paladin does not have a magical weapon at all. If he has a magical weapon, the spell is only marginally useful.

4) On the other hand, negating +5/?? DR is a somewhat powerful ability, but if only one class in your party can do it due to a spell that he may or may not have memorized, it’s no big deal. In other words, no other class has this unique spell. The second interpretation does not make the spell that unique, it makes it ludicrously wimpy. All it gains is the automatic critical feature against evil creatures over the Magic Weapon spell of the Cleric that Clerics get at first (class) level, 3 to 5 levels earlier than a Paladin. Plus, Magic Weapon actually does give a +1 enhancement bonus which neither interpretation of Bless Weapon does.

Basically when I compare the second interpretation to Magic Weapon, I wonder why anyone would want to ever cast Bless Weapon when all it does is mostly give you a crit boost at the expense of only being able to be used against evil creatures and losing +1 to hit and +1 to damage against all creatures. Granted, if you had the Improved Crit feat (which a Paladin could not get until 9th level) and a Scythe, you could min-max this spell to boost your crit chance from say 10% to 25% (in say a 40% chance to hit circumstance). But, that’s a very focused path to make the spell semi-worthwhile. By 9th level, Paladins are often running into creatures with a +2/?? DR.

Remember, such a boost does not often help that much. Based on the roll you need to hit, this is the increase in average damage (using the uber min/max Improved Critical Scythe example):

20 5.25% to 10%
19 11% to 20%
18 17.25% to 30%
17 24% to 40%
16 31.25% to 50%
15 36.25% to 55%
14 41.25% to 60%, etc.

It’s less if the Paladin does not have a magical weapon. It’s less if he does not have Improved Critical. It’s less if he uses a lower crit range weapon than a Scythe.

For a magical longsword, the average damage changes to:

20 5.25% to 10%
19 11% to 20%
18 16% to 25%
17 21% to 30%, etc.

Or basically, a 9% increase in average damage (actually slightly less than that since you do not get that if you need a 20 to hit). If the sword is non-magical, Magic Weapon does much better since most characters do not average 10 or more points of damage, Magic Weapon is also +1 to hit, and Magic Weapon affects more creatures.


In fact, on average, the same level Bless spell does a LOT more than the second interpretation of Bless Weapon: >5% increase in average damage for many party members (plus the saving throw boost) vs. many creatures compared with +9% increase in average damage for one party member vs. only evil creatures.


I just don’t buy the second interpretation at all. Yes, this spell is literally ambiguous due to the ambiguity of the English language.


But, totally castrating a unique single class spell for a class that traditionally is designed to stand up to the most fearsome of evil creatures really does make the Cleric more powerful across the board than the Paladin. Even in that solely Paladin-like situation of interposing himself between evil and the rest of the world, the Cleric is now better at that as well. Sigh.


I think the proponents of the second interpretation are ignoring the fact that the spell is basically worthless for the most part with that interpretation because of some misconceived fear that it might be too powerful with the first interpretation.

 

[mirzabah]

Thoughts on telekinesis

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.)

If I were faced with a player wanting to telekinese 250 daggers (or 1,500 arrows, or 2,250 crossbow bolts as someone once suggested on rec.games.frp.dnd), I would:

• question whether it is possible to hit someone with that many weapons at once - there's just not enough room on a person's (orc's, dragon's, stirge's, whatever) body. I would suggest an upper limit of around 50 daggers, or 150 arrows for a medium sized target.
• Despite the reference in the PHB to multiple attack rolls for each object, I would rule that only one object can be used as a weapon in this fashion - multiple objects fall under the 1 or 1d6 points damage per 25 pounds (arrows & bolts I would treat as "less dangerous", daggers as "hard, dense" objects). My thinking here is that in order for the object to do weapon damage, you would have to orient and aim it in such a fashion that it hits a vulnerable spot on the victim. I can imagine someone doing this for one object, but not for 250 at once.

If you don't like these suggestions, then perhaps you should also point out under My Best Advice that:

• the spell description seems to suggest that multiple objects are treated en masse - moving seperate objects in different directions, or rotating them indepedently would be impossible. Therefore, for multiple weapons to be used in this fashion, they would have to be all pointing in the same direction before the spell was cast.
• With this in mind, players need to think very carefully about how they're going to carry their telekinetic artillery around.
• However you rule, insist that attack rolls must be made for each and every weapon - after all, as you pointed out yourself "it is the rules" . I suspect that after making 250 attack rolls (plus however many damage rolls) the player will either get very bored with the idea, or be lynched by the other players.

Cheers,
Mirzabah.

 

[IceBear]

There is next to no mention of underwater adventuring in the core books at all, so to use the lack of specific references to the effect of being underwater has on a spell and then infer that it cannot work underwater, is very unreasonable in my opinion.

Yes, flying, swimming, burrowing, etc movement rates tend to be listed seperately, but they are normally based on the base speed of the character.

Anyway, the fact that in past editions you could use the fly spell underwater and that the Sage said you could is enough for me. To point at the lack of specific reference for how the spell functions underwater, in books that are almost completely without reference to how things work underwater, makes no sense to me.

IceBear

 

[KarinsDad]

There is next to no mention of underwater adventuring in the core books at all, so to use the lack of specific references to the effect of being underwater has on a spell and then infer that it cannot work underwater, is very unreasonable in my opinion.

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.

 

[Caliban]

Thanks gnfnrf.

I now understand why it is ambiguous.


My personal take is that the first interpretation is almost definitely what was meant (i.e. the interpretation that segregates the two halves at the word “and”). The second interpretation makes the spell a joke for several reasons, especially at higher levels.

...

But, totally castrating a unique single class spell for a class that traditionally is designed to stand up to the most fearsome of evil creatures really does make the Cleric more powerful across the board than the Paladin. Even in that solely Paladin-like situation of interposing himself between evil and the rest of the world, the Cleric is now better at that as well. Sigh.


I think the proponents of the second interpretation are ignoring the fact that the spell is basically worthless for the most part with that interpretation because of some misconceived fear that it might be too powerful with the first interpretation.

I think you are seriously (and melodramatically) undervaluing the ability to autocrit. I believe that is intended to be the main benefit of the spell, and the effective +1 bonus is just gravy. That alone is enough to make it more useful than magic weapon, since it applies even if you are using a +4 weapon.

Also, it's a first level spell, it's not supposed to be that useful at higher levels. The higher level version of the spell is Holy Sword, which turns your weapon into a +5 weapon, automatically does double damage, and generates a circle of protection against evil. Plus, you can still use bless weapon to autocrit.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you are seriously (and melodramatically) undervaluing the ability to autocrit. I believe that is intended to be the main benefit of the spell, and the effective +1 bonus is just gravy. That alone is enough to make it more useful than magic weapon, since it applies even if you are using a +4 weapon.

A 9% increase in average damage is helpful when you need a 19 or 20 to hit an opponent since it almost doubles your average damage (from 11% to 20% in the case of a 19 on a 19-20 x2 or x3 weapon).

But, the vast majority of the time, your chances to hit are much higher than that. Typically, Paladins have about a 25% to 75% chance to hit most evil monsters. So, in these cases (the vast majority of combat), it increases the damage by about 13% to 33% or 1 to 3 points of damage for a Paladin that does an average of 8 to 10 points of damage per attack. So, it basically is +2 damage per successful attack.

That is somewhat weak considering how much extra average damage Bless or Divine Favor can do in a round.

I personally think it is no big deal to give Paladins a spell which is more powerful in certain rare circumstances (i.e. you have to have the spell prepared and your opponent has to have DR 2+) than Magic Weapon.

The vast majority of the time, this spell will not be that powerful since the vast majority of the time, level 4+ Paladins will already have a magical weapon that does half of the spell’s effects anyway (given the second interpretation).

With the first interpretation, the spell gets the ability to auto-crit (which damage-wise is usually about 2 points per successful hit). But, it gives the weapon the ability to bypass DR which is the main ability of the spell. Remember, high DR creatures will often have high ACs and hit points to protect them and this is one weapon per spell cast.

Also, it's a first level spell, it's not supposed to be that useful at higher levels. The higher level version of the spell is Holy Sword, which turns your weapon into a +5 weapon, automatically does double damage, and generates a circle of protection against evil. Plus, you can still use bless weapon to autocrit.

Err, Bless Weapon does not work with Holy Sword. This is explicitly called out in the Holy Sword description.

 

[Archer]

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.

 

[Virago]

The literal argument again...

Karinsdad said:
The bottom line is that 5-foot steps do not provoke AoOs (see glossary).

..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.

The AoO rules only allow one 5-foot step per round.

No. If one is arguing literally, there's nothing that states that you can't take a full-action and a partial action, and get 5' steps with both and avoid AoOs with both steps.

This is assuming the p. 121 MEA quote is taken as applying only to MEAs, which it does, since it's in the MEA section. "When you move no distance in a round.. you may take one 5' step either before, during, or after the action." The move equivalent action. Each type of action states if it can take a 5' step, and this is the text on how the 5' step of MEAs work (goes the argument).

Admittedly this leads to a strange state of affairs where the MEA step is weaker than other steps. But if you're committed to following poorly-written rules to the lettter, what do you expect?

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."

I don't think Artoomis ever dealt with these arguments effectively. He argued that the MEA quote should be read generally. But if you assume that to be true, you don't need the glossary or p. 117 at all; so the whole "three quotes" argument is pointless, unless you get the rather silly idea that taking a 5' step is not "moving any actual distance." Even if you like that idea, the logical counterargument shows that there's still no contradiction.

Belief that p. 121 is general is all you need. If you don't believe that, then yes, haste gives an extra 5' step, depending on if the other step is an MEA step.

...

I agree that the original intent of the rules was for only one 5' step a round. However, it's not even clear in the literal rules, while lots of stuff no one would take literally is quite plainly stated. Whether it's "literally stated" in the poorly garbled rules should, I think, be the last argument to sway anyone on whether or not they should get two 5' steps with haste. Stronger arguments:

(1) It's not what the rules say, but it's what they mean.
(2) It's imbalancing/not imbalancing.
(3) It defies common sense (or doesn't).

I'd say (1) goes to the non-steppers, (2) is questionable, and (3) goes to the pro-steppers.

To sum up: the hyper-literal reading aspect of this issue is both inconclusive and pointless.

I'd rather not hash this out anymore on Artoomis's poor thread Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...