Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
Voadam
Legend
#18
#18 Non-Trip weapons
I would suggest for the argument against: A trip attack is a melee attack, and melee attacks can be done with weapons. The "Trip Weapons" only have a bonus special feature when used to trip, they do not create a restriction on other weapon's abilities to trip. You can think of it as knocking your opponent to the ground with a non-deadly part of the weapon (sweep with a quarterstaff or haft of a spear, dagger hilt to the head, etc.).
#18 Non-Trip weapons
I would suggest for the argument against: A trip attack is a melee attack, and melee attacks can be done with weapons. The "Trip Weapons" only have a bonus special feature when used to trip, they do not create a restriction on other weapon's abilities to trip. You can think of it as knocking your opponent to the ground with a non-deadly part of the weapon (sweep with a quarterstaff or haft of a spear, dagger hilt to the head, etc.).
Voadam
Legend
#30
#30 extend spells with varying effects.
Here is the extend spell feat from the SRD for the rules part:
Extend Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal. Spells with a concentration, instantaneous, or permanent duration are not affected by this feat. An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Arguments Against: According to the feat the whole spell is double duration, not just a high damage part of it. Each element of a spell's duration therefore should be doubled. This makes damage from spells like heat metal doubled with extended duration but takes longer to deal out big damage, an interesting tactical consideration but not a rules problem.
#30 extend spells with varying effects.
Here is the extend spell feat from the SRD for the rules part:
Extend Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal. Spells with a concentration, instantaneous, or permanent duration are not affected by this feat. An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Arguments Against: According to the feat the whole spell is double duration, not just a high damage part of it. Each element of a spell's duration therefore should be doubled. This makes damage from spells like heat metal doubled with extended duration but takes longer to deal out big damage, an interesting tactical consideration but not a rules problem.
The Savant
First Post
Howdy,
On things like Burst and Speed weapons, you just need to look at the prereqs. For Speed weapons, it's Haste so they would not stack with Haste. If you do something else in the round with the Haste other than swing the Speed weapon, you don't get to swing the sword. You already got the Partial Action benefit from the Haste. [In other words, Speed means you trade a 'limited' Haste for the permanency of the effect on the blade...] Burst weapons use the same prereqs as the lesser Flame/Cold weapons, a +2 enhancement versus a +1 enhancement. They just work a bit better on Criticals, hence the extra +1 in cost.
Here's one that bugs me, and should have been covered in the basic rules in either the DMG or PH:
What are the penalties to being Prone, other than to hit/be hit?
i) Movement penalty [we house-ruled to 1/2 base for crawling, which is generous...]
ii) Skill Check penalties [for skills that require you to be standing up]
iii) Do you retain your threatened area etc.
Ta,
The Savant
On things like Burst and Speed weapons, you just need to look at the prereqs. For Speed weapons, it's Haste so they would not stack with Haste. If you do something else in the round with the Haste other than swing the Speed weapon, you don't get to swing the sword. You already got the Partial Action benefit from the Haste. [In other words, Speed means you trade a 'limited' Haste for the permanency of the effect on the blade...] Burst weapons use the same prereqs as the lesser Flame/Cold weapons, a +2 enhancement versus a +1 enhancement. They just work a bit better on Criticals, hence the extra +1 in cost.
Here's one that bugs me, and should have been covered in the basic rules in either the DMG or PH:
What are the penalties to being Prone, other than to hit/be hit?
i) Movement penalty [we house-ruled to 1/2 base for crawling, which is generous...]
ii) Skill Check penalties [for skills that require you to be standing up]
iii) Do you retain your threatened area etc.
Ta,
The Savant
I think you should either remove the Best Advice section, or change its name.
I also think you should rethink it each time to be the advice most in letter and spirit of the rules, not Artoomis' house rules, especially if you keep the title as Best Advice, possibly making it Spirit of the Rules Advice.
For example, a large majority of people disagree with you that Monks should be allowed to use Shields. They do not get it as a class ability, they are explicitly prevented from using Armor and getting their bonuses, and Shields are explicitly listed as an Armor type.
The spirit of the rules is that they should not get them. And, you seem to ignore the Shields are Armor letter of the rules.
I think you should be more objective about this. JMO.
I also think you should rethink it each time to be the advice most in letter and spirit of the rules, not Artoomis' house rules, especially if you keep the title as Best Advice, possibly making it Spirit of the Rules Advice.
For example, a large majority of people disagree with you that Monks should be allowed to use Shields. They do not get it as a class ability, they are explicitly prevented from using Armor and getting their bonuses, and Shields are explicitly listed as an Armor type.
The spirit of the rules is that they should not get them. And, you seem to ignore the Shields are Armor letter of the rules.
I think you should be more objective about this. JMO.
Artoomis
First Post
KarinsDad:
While I would like it very much if most people agreed with me, in the end it doesn't really matter who agrees with me, except perhaps for my DM, as I am presenting what I think is the rule that best fits the game as it was published - that is, it follows the rules and intent of the rules as I read them. Far more importantly, I am providing a framework for discussion. I am certain that my label of "Best Advice" carries less weight with my readers than the "official" designation for the Sage's Advice, yet I see his advice derided and ignored at times.
In any case, at the beginning of the document I clearly label "Best Advice" for what it is:
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.
So I've decided to leave the format as is, though I did include the initial explanation to make it very clear what I am doing.
Of course, if someone else wanted to take on this monstrous little project, they would be free to present it any way they wanted, I would only want to see that both sides of each argument were presented fairly.
So much for defending myself.
Do you have any input on anything in the list? Or anything else that should be added.
While I would like it very much if most people agreed with me, in the end it doesn't really matter who agrees with me, except perhaps for my DM, as I am presenting what I think is the rule that best fits the game as it was published - that is, it follows the rules and intent of the rules as I read them. Far more importantly, I am providing a framework for discussion. I am certain that my label of "Best Advice" carries less weight with my readers than the "official" designation for the Sage's Advice, yet I see his advice derided and ignored at times.
In any case, at the beginning of the document I clearly label "Best Advice" for what it is:
Seems like a pretty clear explanation to me. History has shown, though, that many things that seem clear to me don't seem clear to you.
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.
So I've decided to leave the format as is, though I did include the initial explanation to make it very clear what I am doing.
Of course, if someone else wanted to take on this monstrous little project, they would be free to present it any way they wanted, I would only want to see that both sides of each argument were presented fairly.
So much for defending myself.
Do you have any input on anything in the list? Or anything else that should be added.
Virago
First Post
Blah, I'll try again.
Monks use of a shield
The first argument for ("it will not give high ACs") is still weak. It basically says that a shield does not give a significant enough bonus to AC to worry about it. But this is wrong; just ask any fighter.
"Anything heavier than a buckler will give arcane failure to monk supernatural abilities"
This is inconsistent; you are saying that shields don't count as armor for monk abilities, but do count as armor for the failure chance of supernatural abilities. This is a very hard conclusion to reach from p. 39 of the PHB: "When wearing armor, a monk loses her [monk abils]. Futhermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor type normally imposes." It seems silly to interpret armor one way in one sentence, and another way in the very next sentence -- just because you want to try to balance monks using shields.
In addition, it's also incorrect because bucklers have 5% arcane spell failure chance, not 0%, at least in my PHB.
The fact that it takes an MEA to ready and put away a shield does suggest that it might be like a weapon, since it takes an MEA to draw or sheathe a weapon. However, the fact that it's strapped on your arm and can't be dropped by a free action suggests it is worn armor.
Finally, the traditional concept of an oriental-style monk includes the use of shields (but only small ones).
Really?
Of all the martial arts movies I've seen, you could say spears, swords, staves, clubs, benches, tobacco pipes, chopsticks, rice bowls, oars, coins ... but shields? I don't recall ever having seen a shield in any martial arts film, much less a shield being used by a monk type character. Unless you count tea trays, chairs, strips of cloth, etc. 
6: Haste and 5' step
If you go back to my original "argument for" your position, it says exactly what you want to say. You fail to mention that the p. 121 quote is mentioned in the context of MEA's, which is partial and misleading.
Whether or not it applies to all 5' steps is the very judgement decision that you're supposed to be helping people make -- don't make the decision for them and hide it in "the rules" section.
Also:
3. You avoid an AoO from movement only if all your movement in the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step).
This is blatantly incorrect. First, you've forgotten about the double move. Second, you may have forgotten about Tumble. Third and most important, p. 117 says:
"Exceptions to these conditions for attacks of opportunity due to moving in or away from a threatened area include the following:" (emphasis mine).
So the entire Argument For does not hold up, since step 4 relies on the incorrect step 3 (in fact step 4 is nothing more than underlining step 3). And you seem to still be pretending that haste never forces a reinterpretation of "round" in other cases.
Not very impartial of you. If you go back to my argument for your point of view you'll see that it states exactly what you want to say (and more, because it includes the "haste is strong enough" argument).
"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. There is no good reason for the rules not to stand on this issue."
You also make the Argument Against sound weaker than it is, which I would restate as so:
"It makes sense to allow the extra 5' step because the character is acting and thinking at increased speed--he can make another attack, cast another spell, move 2x his speed, so why not make another 5' step? If p. 121 is not general, then haste allows an extra 5' step. If it is meant generally, the rules are still obviously written without haste in mind (e.g. "A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round") so a reasonable interpretation need not worry about the rules."
Also when you mention the Sage's ruling, you neglect to mention that originally he ruled on the side of the extra 5' step.
Stop trying to pretend that there is no controversy in this issue
8 The shield spell
You really should post the links I gave you.
10 Unarmed threatening
There seems to be a formatting error on the last line of the entry.
15 Coups des Graces and touch spells.
I'm not really into this one, but I'll point out p. 140 for the rules section: "Sometimes a character or creature attacks unarmed but still counts as armed. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed. Note that being armed counts for offense and defense."
To me this implies very strongly that if you can CdG as a monk or IUS owner or natural attack user, you can CdG with a touch spell.
These also tie in to #17.
18 Can you use a non-trip weapon to initiate a trip?
Personally I think that anyone who wants to rule that a fighter with a shield and longsword is incapable of making a trip attack is not imagining combat very well. We also know from p. 140 that you don't have to have both hands free to make unarmed attacks.
Furthermore, note that p. 139 says "You can try to trip an opponent as a melee attack." If you believe melee attacks do not include unarmed attacks (and didn't the sage say trip attacks are unarmed?) you are going to have a problem.
As an argument against, I'd also add that the trip rules say nothing about needing a specific weapon, or any weapon at all really.
In an Overrun, you make a Trip attack as part of it: "if he blocks you, make a trip attack against him." Can you not do this at all without a trip weapon, then?
But I'm digressing into the whole armed/unarmed mess.
24 AoO and Total Defense
I think the Best Advice sounds a little like you are the one provoking the AoO.
The argument for is a little weak. Maybe an AoO is not an attack action, but the rule text also says : "You don't.. perform any other activity other than moving your speed..." It says "activity," not "actions."
If I remember, I think the Sage actually also said that it would make perfect sense not to allow AoOs during a total defense--he was not unequivocal or prone to making up rules. This was a long time ago, obviously
28 L shaped Charges and Runs
When you say "running must all be in a straight line" you are misunderstanding. Partial runs are the issue, not the full round run action: that is, moving your speed, then reading a partial run in another direction (which has a stronger case in the rules than the L-shaped charge).
The argument for states: "The rules specify that all movement during your charge must be in a straight line" but this is not true. The rules say: "all movement must be in a straight line."
You say: "Only one 5’ step per round, no exceptions" but you misunderstand the issue. The issue is whether or not you can move, then ready a 5' step and attack. It's not about getting more than one 5' step in a round at all, so your statements in the Best Advice and Argument For don't apply.
The Best Advice should probably conclude that the 5' step you get with the partial from Ready follows the rules for 5' steps from MEAs on p. 121, which prevents ( move, ready: 5' step + attack). The argument for is pretty easily that.
I'd change the argument against to read:
"When you charge, all movement must be in a straight line. Also, if you can do L-shaped charges with Ready, the normal charge action itself becomes worthless if people use intelligent ready triggers. It stands to reason that you could not then also do L-shaped runs. As for 5' steps, why can you charge 10 feet (but no less) and attack, but not simply move 5' and attack? If you move next to a spellcaster and ready an attack (which seems intelligent), you can't do anything when they move 5' away and cast."
29 Boccob's Blessed Book
Your "Best advice" sounds like an argument for. It should be "When you scribe spells into a Boccob's blessed book, the normal scribing fees are waived."
I'd add to the argument against: "Monte probably post-publication decided 'sure why not' when asked if scribing into a BBB is free."
31 Underwater
This should be reconciled with #7, using fly underwater. Or rather, #7 should be reconciled with this. I.e. you still need to make Swim rolls would be one reconciliation.
32 Stacking, speed, and haste
The description of the speed weapon enhancement doesn't mention "stacking," so this is not a stacking issue at all. So you have to throw the arguments out and start over.
Argument for: "Is not cumulative with" means "does not stack with." I.e., the effects of the weapon of speed and the effects of the haste spell do not add together. It's one or the other, presumably haste since it does everything this special quality does and more.
Argument against: It's a +4 special power, so it should be strong. "Is not cumulative with" means "does not count twice with." The meaning is the same as if all mention of the haste spell were removed.
Oh well have fun
Monks use of a shield
The first argument for ("it will not give high ACs") is still weak. It basically says that a shield does not give a significant enough bonus to AC to worry about it. But this is wrong; just ask any fighter.
"Anything heavier than a buckler will give arcane failure to monk supernatural abilities"
This is inconsistent; you are saying that shields don't count as armor for monk abilities, but do count as armor for the failure chance of supernatural abilities. This is a very hard conclusion to reach from p. 39 of the PHB: "When wearing armor, a monk loses her [monk abils]. Futhermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor type normally imposes." It seems silly to interpret armor one way in one sentence, and another way in the very next sentence -- just because you want to try to balance monks using shields.
In addition, it's also incorrect because bucklers have 5% arcane spell failure chance, not 0%, at least in my PHB.
The fact that it takes an MEA to ready and put away a shield does suggest that it might be like a weapon, since it takes an MEA to draw or sheathe a weapon. However, the fact that it's strapped on your arm and can't be dropped by a free action suggests it is worn armor.
Finally, the traditional concept of an oriental-style monk includes the use of shields (but only small ones).
Really?
Of all the martial arts movies I've seen, you could say spears, swords, staves, clubs, benches, tobacco pipes, chopsticks, rice bowls, oars, coins ... but shields? I don't recall ever having seen a shield in any martial arts film, much less a shield being used by a monk type character. Unless you count tea trays, chairs, strips of cloth, etc. 6: Haste and 5' step
If you go back to my original "argument for" your position, it says exactly what you want to say. You fail to mention that the p. 121 quote is mentioned in the context of MEA's, which is partial and misleading.
Whether or not it applies to all 5' steps is the very judgement decision that you're supposed to be helping people make -- don't make the decision for them and hide it in "the rules" section.
Also:
3. You avoid an AoO from movement only if all your movement in the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step).
This is blatantly incorrect. First, you've forgotten about the double move. Second, you may have forgotten about Tumble. Third and most important, p. 117 says:
"Exceptions to these conditions for attacks of opportunity due to moving in or away from a threatened area include the following:" (emphasis mine).
So the entire Argument For does not hold up, since step 4 relies on the incorrect step 3 (in fact step 4 is nothing more than underlining step 3). And you seem to still be pretending that haste never forces a reinterpretation of "round" in other cases.
Not very impartial of you. If you go back to my argument for your point of view you'll see that it states exactly what you want to say (and more, because it includes the "haste is strong enough" argument).
"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. There is no good reason for the rules not to stand on this issue."
You also make the Argument Against sound weaker than it is, which I would restate as so:
"It makes sense to allow the extra 5' step because the character is acting and thinking at increased speed--he can make another attack, cast another spell, move 2x his speed, so why not make another 5' step? If p. 121 is not general, then haste allows an extra 5' step. If it is meant generally, the rules are still obviously written without haste in mind (e.g. "A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round") so a reasonable interpretation need not worry about the rules."
Also when you mention the Sage's ruling, you neglect to mention that originally he ruled on the side of the extra 5' step.
Stop trying to pretend that there is no controversy in this issue
8 The shield spell
You really should post the links I gave you.
10 Unarmed threatening
There seems to be a formatting error on the last line of the entry.
15 Coups des Graces and touch spells.
I'm not really into this one, but I'll point out p. 140 for the rules section: "Sometimes a character or creature attacks unarmed but still counts as armed. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed. Note that being armed counts for offense and defense."
To me this implies very strongly that if you can CdG as a monk or IUS owner or natural attack user, you can CdG with a touch spell.
These also tie in to #17.
18 Can you use a non-trip weapon to initiate a trip?
Personally I think that anyone who wants to rule that a fighter with a shield and longsword is incapable of making a trip attack is not imagining combat very well. We also know from p. 140 that you don't have to have both hands free to make unarmed attacks.
Furthermore, note that p. 139 says "You can try to trip an opponent as a melee attack." If you believe melee attacks do not include unarmed attacks (and didn't the sage say trip attacks are unarmed?) you are going to have a problem.
As an argument against, I'd also add that the trip rules say nothing about needing a specific weapon, or any weapon at all really.
In an Overrun, you make a Trip attack as part of it: "if he blocks you, make a trip attack against him." Can you not do this at all without a trip weapon, then?
But I'm digressing into the whole armed/unarmed mess.
24 AoO and Total Defense
I think the Best Advice sounds a little like you are the one provoking the AoO.
The argument for is a little weak. Maybe an AoO is not an attack action, but the rule text also says : "You don't.. perform any other activity other than moving your speed..." It says "activity," not "actions."
If I remember, I think the Sage actually also said that it would make perfect sense not to allow AoOs during a total defense--he was not unequivocal or prone to making up rules. This was a long time ago, obviously
28 L shaped Charges and Runs
When you say "running must all be in a straight line" you are misunderstanding. Partial runs are the issue, not the full round run action: that is, moving your speed, then reading a partial run in another direction (which has a stronger case in the rules than the L-shaped charge).
The argument for states: "The rules specify that all movement during your charge must be in a straight line" but this is not true. The rules say: "all movement must be in a straight line."
You say: "Only one 5’ step per round, no exceptions" but you misunderstand the issue. The issue is whether or not you can move, then ready a 5' step and attack. It's not about getting more than one 5' step in a round at all, so your statements in the Best Advice and Argument For don't apply.
The Best Advice should probably conclude that the 5' step you get with the partial from Ready follows the rules for 5' steps from MEAs on p. 121, which prevents ( move, ready: 5' step + attack). The argument for is pretty easily that.
I'd change the argument against to read:
"When you charge, all movement must be in a straight line. Also, if you can do L-shaped charges with Ready, the normal charge action itself becomes worthless if people use intelligent ready triggers. It stands to reason that you could not then also do L-shaped runs. As for 5' steps, why can you charge 10 feet (but no less) and attack, but not simply move 5' and attack? If you move next to a spellcaster and ready an attack (which seems intelligent), you can't do anything when they move 5' away and cast."
29 Boccob's Blessed Book
Your "Best advice" sounds like an argument for. It should be "When you scribe spells into a Boccob's blessed book, the normal scribing fees are waived."
I'd add to the argument against: "Monte probably post-publication decided 'sure why not' when asked if scribing into a BBB is free."
31 Underwater
This should be reconciled with #7, using fly underwater. Or rather, #7 should be reconciled with this. I.e. you still need to make Swim rolls would be one reconciliation.
32 Stacking, speed, and haste
The description of the speed weapon enhancement doesn't mention "stacking," so this is not a stacking issue at all. So you have to throw the arguments out and start over.
Argument for: "Is not cumulative with" means "does not stack with." I.e., the effects of the weapon of speed and the effects of the haste spell do not add together. It's one or the other, presumably haste since it does everything this special quality does and more.
Argument against: It's a +4 special power, so it should be strong. "Is not cumulative with" means "does not count twice with." The meaning is the same as if all mention of the haste spell were removed.
Oh well have fun
Similar Threads
