Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules
Artoomis
First Post
Virago said:I'm not sure when "Artoomis' Opinion" will be different from "Best Advice."
Obviously it's the same thing.
It's not my opinion on the rules, though, it's my opinion as to what's most reasonable given all information at hand. There's a reason the word "Best" is in quotes, after all.I don't expect everyone to agree with my advice as to what is "Best" - but it gives a great place to start, and gives form to the "For" and "Against" arguments so you can make up your own mind.
When one is producing the guide, one gets to take certain liberties
Last edited:
Virago
First Post
Artoomis said: There's a reason the word "Best" is in quotes, after all.
I don't see any quotes. What's wrong with "My Advice."?
I'll go through the document now, or the points I care about.
Prelim: Because of the layout, with "Argument For" and "Argument against," the topic entry should be stated in a way that when you say something is "for" that, it makes sense. For example:
"How does the Fly Spell work when underwater? (Full speed, reduced speed, ot not at all?)"
Argument for --- for what? There's nothing here to be for or against.
4: Does a monk wearing a shield suffer the monk penalties for "wearing armor"?
I don't understand the "best advice" -- you really need to be careful in this case about separating the "monk penalties" from the normal armor penalties in table 7-5. The best advice seems to be saying that monks using a shield do suffer full monk penalties, but not the normal armor penalties, which I don't think is the intended best advice.
Also, this question is worded strangely.. is the "For" argument supposed to be "for" penalties, or "for" no-penalties?
I haven't read the thread discussing this, but I'll just try to put down the arguments off the cuff:
The Rules: The rules say "when wearing armor" the monk loses certain monk abilities (PHB p.39). Shields are listed in the armor section on p. 104, and has all the same kinds of bonuses and penalties. However, the rules explanations of that table make a difference between wearing armor and using a shield. e.g. p. 105, under Arcane Spell Failure: "If you are wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance."
Argument for: (I'm not sure of your "for" argument; a +5 large shield is not a neglible increase to AC). "Worn armor" means "worn armor," as in around the body. Why should a shield get in the way of movement more than a clumsy weapon held in the hands, which does not impair monk abilities.
Argument against: Shields are armor. If monks were meant to be able to use shields without monk penalties, they'd have shield proficiency. A shield is not held, it is "worn," and shields give armor check penalties and arcane spell failure percentages just like other armor. Also, the idea of a monk with a shield is obviously against the class concept.
6: Haste and 5' step
The Rules: Under move-equivalent actions on p. 121 the PHB says "If you move no actual distance in a round... you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action." It's not obvious whether this applies to partial actions or not -- but it does seem clear that the designers did not consider the issue very carefully. There is no specific restriction to the 5' step with a partial action, just as there is no specific restriction to the 5' step with a full round action.
The Sage: Responded first agreeing that two five foot steps are possible, but later supported that the p. 121 quote is indeed mean to apply generally to all 5' steps, and you get only one 5' step per round.
Argument for: The p. 121 quote is not general, or even if it is, it is written naively with respect to haste, which causes an exception in many cases of the generally-written rules. Also, allowing the 5-step and treating haste as a "mini-round" makes sense in terms of the powers of the spell. The rules can also be interpreted in a way that grants an extra 5' step, but you only avoid AoOs if you take only one with no other movement.
Argument against: Haste is strong enough as it is. P. 121 is meant generally, so applies to the 5' step from partial actions. The intended rule (poorly expressed or not) is that you get one 5' step per round unless you otherwise move, period.
(I've glossed over the more wonky arguments but I think that sums up every single haste thread I've ever seen)
8: How does shield work?
Also another one where "For" and "Against" don't make much sense.
The Rules: The spell says on p. 251 "You designate half the battlefield (with yourself on the dividing line) as being blocked by the shield. The other half is not."
Sage: There was an elaborate explanation of how shield works in Dragon #280's Sage Advice, viewable at these links:
http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/shieldpic.jpg and http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/shieldtext.jpg
Argument for: Shield is powerful, and the Sage's way works just fine, even if it "costs" a square. This clarification was made long ago.
Argument against: "Half" means "half."
10: Do you threaten an area while unarmed?
Rules: You "threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack." (PHB p. 122). On table 8-1, "Attack (unarmed)" is a separate entry from "Attack (melee)." On p. 140, "striking for damage with a punches, kicks, and head butts is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following." Lack of threatening the area around is not listed here, or anywhere else in the rules.
Sage: Has said that you don't threaten while unarmed unless you're "considered armed" (have Improved Unarmed Strike, are a monk, are a monster using 'natural weapons,' etc.)
Argument for: It's the rules and the Sage is off-base. Unarmed attacks are pretty wimpy anyway since they usually provoke AoOs and do tiny damage--so most people won't take them. Some AoO actions like "trip" or "grapple" are basically unarmed actions; it makes no sense that a holding a crossbow bolt in your off-hand would allow you to make grappling attempts and trips as AoOs, which you couldn't do unarmed.
Argument against: It complicates combat, because then an archer might threaten the area around him with "kicks" and "head butts" which is just wrong.
27: Do I get one AoO per opportunity, with Combat Reflexes?"
Rules: On p. 81, in the Combat Reflexes description, it says "You still only make one attack of opportunity per enemy." On p. 122, speaking of Combat Reflexes, it says "(This feat does not, however, let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.)" In the 2nd printing of the PHB, it says one AoO per opponent per round, in the AoO insert in the back.
Sage: Has said one per opponent per round.
WotC/Other: Monte Cook said one per opportunity, which the Sage 'overruled.'
Argument For: It makes sense. Why could you take two AoOs on two different people who drink potions, but not two AoOs on the same person who drank two potions. It also weakens Combat Reflexes too much, and people can "fake" an AoO from you for one action, then cast a spell or something.
Argument Against: Regardless, the rules are one per opponent per round. It is simple and prevents recursive AoO chains (rare or not). Combat Reflexes is not weakened that much at all, and the "faking out" an AoO applies to everyone with or without Combat Reflexes.
28: Can I use Ready to do L-shaped partial charges and partial runs? Can I move 5', then ready a 5' step and attack so long as I don't go over my normal movement rate?
(Really, three questions in one)
Rules: One must assume partial charges and runs conform to the normal rules for running and charging, except where noted. In the PHB, p. 124: "All movement must be in a straight line..." On p. 127, "When you run, you move .. in a straight line." As for the 5' steps, see #6 above.
Sage: The Sage has stated that L-shaped charges are not possible, and that the 5' step in a partial action is exclusive with any other movement.
Arguments for: L-shaped charges and runs make sense. Readying 5' step+attacks makes defeating spellcasters as easy as it should be, and why can I run 30 feet and attack but not move 5' and attack? The readied action does not "see" the rest of the round, it is separate.
Arguments against: The Sage is right about charges. Partial runs are bad for much the same reason. The 5' step with a partial attack is exclusive with other movement; the partial action does "see" the rest of the round.
29: Does Boccob's blessed book let me scribe spells in it at no cost?
Rules: DMG p. 211 "The pages of Boccob's blessed book freely accept spells scribed upon them, and any such book may contain up to 45 spells of any level." According to PHB p. 155, it costs 200 gp per spell level to scribe a spell (for "special quills, ink, and other supplies"), and uses up 2 pages of a normal (100 page) spellbook.
Sage: (not sure)
WotC/Other: Monte Cook, an author of the DMG, has said yes, the normal scribing costs are waived when scribing spells into a Boccob's blessed book.
Argument for: Spellcasting is ridiculously expensive, and "freely" in this case means "free" as in "at no cost." The blessed book is quite expensive anyway, so no harm is done. And Monte said so.
Argument against: It's "freely accept," not "freely scribe." The text is only saying that the book can function as a spellbook. If spell scribing costs bother you, change them. The storage capacity justifies the item price somewhat (and if not completely, then it would not be the only item with an inappropriate price).
...
Whew, what a waste of time. That's all I can think of right now. Hope it helps. Be impartial
I don't see any quotes. What's wrong with "My Advice."?
I'll go through the document now, or the points I care about.
Prelim: Because of the layout, with "Argument For" and "Argument against," the topic entry should be stated in a way that when you say something is "for" that, it makes sense. For example:
"How does the Fly Spell work when underwater? (Full speed, reduced speed, ot not at all?)"
Argument for --- for what? There's nothing here to be for or against.
4: Does a monk wearing a shield suffer the monk penalties for "wearing armor"?
I don't understand the "best advice" -- you really need to be careful in this case about separating the "monk penalties" from the normal armor penalties in table 7-5. The best advice seems to be saying that monks using a shield do suffer full monk penalties, but not the normal armor penalties, which I don't think is the intended best advice.
Also, this question is worded strangely.. is the "For" argument supposed to be "for" penalties, or "for" no-penalties?
I haven't read the thread discussing this, but I'll just try to put down the arguments off the cuff:
The Rules: The rules say "when wearing armor" the monk loses certain monk abilities (PHB p.39). Shields are listed in the armor section on p. 104, and has all the same kinds of bonuses and penalties. However, the rules explanations of that table make a difference between wearing armor and using a shield. e.g. p. 105, under Arcane Spell Failure: "If you are wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance."
Argument for: (I'm not sure of your "for" argument; a +5 large shield is not a neglible increase to AC). "Worn armor" means "worn armor," as in around the body. Why should a shield get in the way of movement more than a clumsy weapon held in the hands, which does not impair monk abilities.
Argument against: Shields are armor. If monks were meant to be able to use shields without monk penalties, they'd have shield proficiency. A shield is not held, it is "worn," and shields give armor check penalties and arcane spell failure percentages just like other armor. Also, the idea of a monk with a shield is obviously against the class concept.
6: Haste and 5' step
The Rules: Under move-equivalent actions on p. 121 the PHB says "If you move no actual distance in a round... you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action." It's not obvious whether this applies to partial actions or not -- but it does seem clear that the designers did not consider the issue very carefully. There is no specific restriction to the 5' step with a partial action, just as there is no specific restriction to the 5' step with a full round action.
The Sage: Responded first agreeing that two five foot steps are possible, but later supported that the p. 121 quote is indeed mean to apply generally to all 5' steps, and you get only one 5' step per round.
Argument for: The p. 121 quote is not general, or even if it is, it is written naively with respect to haste, which causes an exception in many cases of the generally-written rules. Also, allowing the 5-step and treating haste as a "mini-round" makes sense in terms of the powers of the spell. The rules can also be interpreted in a way that grants an extra 5' step, but you only avoid AoOs if you take only one with no other movement.
Argument against: Haste is strong enough as it is. P. 121 is meant generally, so applies to the 5' step from partial actions. The intended rule (poorly expressed or not) is that you get one 5' step per round unless you otherwise move, period.
(I've glossed over the more wonky arguments but I think that sums up every single haste thread I've ever seen
)8: How does shield work?
Also another one where "For" and "Against" don't make much sense.
The Rules: The spell says on p. 251 "You designate half the battlefield (with yourself on the dividing line) as being blocked by the shield. The other half is not."
Sage: There was an elaborate explanation of how shield works in Dragon #280's Sage Advice, viewable at these links:
http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/shieldpic.jpg and http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/shieldtext.jpg
Argument for: Shield is powerful, and the Sage's way works just fine, even if it "costs" a square. This clarification was made long ago.
Argument against: "Half" means "half."
10: Do you threaten an area while unarmed?
Rules: You "threaten the area into which you can make a melee attack." (PHB p. 122). On table 8-1, "Attack (unarmed)" is a separate entry from "Attack (melee)." On p. 140, "striking for damage with a punches, kicks, and head butts is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following." Lack of threatening the area around is not listed here, or anywhere else in the rules.
Sage: Has said that you don't threaten while unarmed unless you're "considered armed" (have Improved Unarmed Strike, are a monk, are a monster using 'natural weapons,' etc.)
Argument for: It's the rules and the Sage is off-base. Unarmed attacks are pretty wimpy anyway since they usually provoke AoOs and do tiny damage--so most people won't take them. Some AoO actions like "trip" or "grapple" are basically unarmed actions; it makes no sense that a holding a crossbow bolt in your off-hand would allow you to make grappling attempts and trips as AoOs, which you couldn't do unarmed.
Argument against: It complicates combat, because then an archer might threaten the area around him with "kicks" and "head butts" which is just wrong.
27: Do I get one AoO per opportunity, with Combat Reflexes?"
Rules: On p. 81, in the Combat Reflexes description, it says "You still only make one attack of opportunity per enemy." On p. 122, speaking of Combat Reflexes, it says "(This feat does not, however, let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity.)" In the 2nd printing of the PHB, it says one AoO per opponent per round, in the AoO insert in the back.
Sage: Has said one per opponent per round.
WotC/Other: Monte Cook said one per opportunity, which the Sage 'overruled.'
Argument For: It makes sense. Why could you take two AoOs on two different people who drink potions, but not two AoOs on the same person who drank two potions. It also weakens Combat Reflexes too much, and people can "fake" an AoO from you for one action, then cast a spell or something.
Argument Against: Regardless, the rules are one per opponent per round. It is simple and prevents recursive AoO chains (rare or not). Combat Reflexes is not weakened that much at all, and the "faking out" an AoO applies to everyone with or without Combat Reflexes.
28: Can I use Ready to do L-shaped partial charges and partial runs? Can I move 5', then ready a 5' step and attack so long as I don't go over my normal movement rate?
(Really, three questions in one)
Rules: One must assume partial charges and runs conform to the normal rules for running and charging, except where noted. In the PHB, p. 124: "All movement must be in a straight line..." On p. 127, "When you run, you move .. in a straight line." As for the 5' steps, see #6 above.
Sage: The Sage has stated that L-shaped charges are not possible, and that the 5' step in a partial action is exclusive with any other movement.
Arguments for: L-shaped charges and runs make sense. Readying 5' step+attacks makes defeating spellcasters as easy as it should be, and why can I run 30 feet and attack but not move 5' and attack? The readied action does not "see" the rest of the round, it is separate.
Arguments against: The Sage is right about charges. Partial runs are bad for much the same reason. The 5' step with a partial attack is exclusive with other movement; the partial action does "see" the rest of the round.
29: Does Boccob's blessed book let me scribe spells in it at no cost?
Rules: DMG p. 211 "The pages of Boccob's blessed book freely accept spells scribed upon them, and any such book may contain up to 45 spells of any level." According to PHB p. 155, it costs 200 gp per spell level to scribe a spell (for "special quills, ink, and other supplies"), and uses up 2 pages of a normal (100 page) spellbook.
Sage: (not sure)
WotC/Other: Monte Cook, an author of the DMG, has said yes, the normal scribing costs are waived when scribing spells into a Boccob's blessed book.
Argument for: Spellcasting is ridiculously expensive, and "freely" in this case means "free" as in "at no cost." The blessed book is quite expensive anyway, so no harm is done. And Monte said so.
Argument against: It's "freely accept," not "freely scribe." The text is only saying that the book can function as a spellbook. If spell scribing costs bother you, change them. The storage capacity justifies the item price somewhat (and if not completely, then it would not be the only item with an inappropriate price).
...
Whew, what a waste of time. That's all I can think of right now. Hope it helps. Be impartial
SpikeyFreak
First Post
bump
--Rocky Spikey
--Rocky Spikey
Artoomis
First Post
Updates complete.
Please give me more input - it's difficult to find the time just to update, never mind if I also have to look up every rule myself.
Thanks, guys. This is shaping up to be a good reference for making decisions on stuff not covered very well in the rules.
ed: Oh, and don't get upset if I don't put the "spin" you want in your answers, but please do let me know so I can make sure that opposite points of view are fairly represented. This document is not the place for me to convince everyone that I am right, it's the place to provide enough information for folks to be able to make good, well-informed choices.
Please give me more input - it's difficult to find the time just to update, never mind if I also have to look up every rule myself.
Thanks, guys. This is shaping up to be a good reference for making decisions on stuff not covered very well in the rules.
ed: Oh, and don't get upset if I don't put the "spin" you want in your answers, but please do let me know so I can make sure that opposite points of view are fairly represented. This document is not the place for me to convince everyone that I am right, it's the place to provide enough information for folks to be able to make good, well-informed choices.
Last edited:
Virago
First Post
Artoomis:
This document is not the place for me to convince everyone that I am right, it's the place to provide enough information for folks to be able to make good, well-informed choices.
Right
I just read the haste and 5' step one, I note you trotting out the same arguments, ignoring the same points; it's lame.
This document is not the place for me to convince everyone that I am right, it's the place to provide enough information for folks to be able to make good, well-informed choices.
Right
I just read the haste and 5' step one, I note you trotting out the same arguments, ignoring the same points; it's lame.
Artoomis
First Post
Virago said:Artoomis:
This document is not the place for me to convince everyone that I am right, it's the place to provide enough information for folks to be able to make good, well-informed choices.
Right
I just read the haste and 5' step one, I note you trotting out the same arguments, ignoring the same points; it's lame.
Tell me which points I've ignored and I'll put them in. Honest! I'd prefer them in a single, tidy package that I could just cut and paste right in. If you'll do it, I'll put it in there.
Jasperak
Adventurer
Hey Artoomis, could you put an index or table of contents on your site? I was looking for info on the "evil" descriptor for animate dead spells and its like, and had too scroll through the whole page. I am lazy and do not have one of those cool mouses that have the scroll roller. My wrist is tired now. Thanks.
