Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[Artoomis]

Virago:

Wow, that was great. Wonderful input. It will take me a little longer to get it all in - give me a day or so and I'll update to include all your comments. I've got to figure out how to get your thoughts in while keeping the rest of it as well.

Great stuff. Thank you.

 

[KarinsDad]

In any case, at the beginning of the document I clearly label "Best Advice" for what it is:

So, change the section to "My Advice". That makes it crystal clear.

The word "Best" is not clearly subjective like the word "My" and by your definition of the section, it is your subjective viewpoint.

As far as being objective, I am quoting rules, the Sage's (and others') opinion and arguments both supporting and undercutting my position. That's pretty darn objective.

Presentation is everything. People might see the section "Best Advice" and consider it to be a synopsis of all they need to know and may not read the rest. I mean, why bother? You've already told them the "best" interpretation. This is especially true since it is at the top of each section. You cannot expect everyone to read everything in such a large document.

It's just extremely misleading.

Do you have any input on anything in the list? Or anything else that should be added.

I should tonight.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I going to have to second the opinion that "best advice" should be called something more appropriate.

--Quiet Spikey

 

[Voadam]

#12

Artoomis,

My rules quotes and suggested comments on #12 Barbarian's DR did not make it into the update. They are on page four of this thread, right after my comments on #13 and right before you say you got another update completed. Just don't want them lost in the shuffle.

I would also suggest labeling the first entries "My Best Advice" so that people just reading a single section will be clear about it. I can see people copying only the sections they are interested in, and printing them out or e-mailing them to their DM to get rulings before they come up in a game.

 

[Artoomis]

"For purposes of harming other creatures with damage reduction, a creature’s natural weapons count as weapons of the type that can ignore its own innate damage reduction. The amount of damage reduction is irrelevant."

"Usually, a certain type of weapon-usually a magic weapon-can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. If a dash follows the slash then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction."

So I suggest for Argument Against: A barbarian's natural attacks count as weapons of the type that overcome its own DR and the barbarian's DR is overcome only by attacks that ignore damage reduction, therefore a barbarian's natural attacks should count as ignoring damage reduction.

I just quoted that here so I don't miss it in the next update.

Also - all right, I give. I'll re-label "Best Advice" as "My Best Advice".

I'm not sure who couldn't figure out it's my advice - I'm writing it, after all. Who's "Best Advice" would you think it is? You guts certainly realized it was my advice. Oh well, I will cave in on this one - against my better judgement.

 

[LBeefus]

Regarding #1, the Sage said (in email to me):

thesage@wizards.com
--BEGIN--
You can't use a buckler with a two-handed weapon. (Many DMs allow this, if you're one on them just use the two-weapon attack penalty.)

In any case, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus on any round when you attack with the hand that holds the buckler (even if you use a ranged weapon such as a bow).
--END--

lbeefus

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hey Artoomis:

Any chance of my question (posted on your previous thread) regarding barbarian DR getting in there? The question was whether barbarian DR ignores energy attacks, as stated in the PHB Glossary, or whether it is subject to the normal rule for energy attacks bypassing DR as suggested in the DMG.

 

[Artoomis]

Hey Artoomis:

Any chance of my question (posted on your previous thread) regarding barbarian DR getting in there? The question was whether barbarian DR ignores energy attacks, as stated in the PHB Glossary, or whether it is subject to the normal rule for energy attacks bypassing DR as suggested in the DMG.

Would you be so kind as to remind me what the PHB glossary says, please. I know the general rule is that energy attacks bypass DR - if you have a good argument for why Barbarian's DR should not follow that rule, please remind me of that argument.

Thanks.

 

[Archer]

PHB 277, middle of left column

Damage reduction: A special defense ... but not from energy attacks... Barbarians have damage reduction as a class feature, but theirs is a special type that negates a set amount of damage from any source.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

PHB 277, middle of left column

Damage reduction: A special defense ... but not from energy attacks... Barbarians have damage reduction as a class feature, but theirs is a special type that negates a set amount of damage from any source.

Archer:

I would be willing to be that they didn't mean energy damage. What they meant is that there are no physical attacks that can over-come it, unlike normal x/+y DR.

At least that's my take on the entry.

--Psychic Spikey