Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 103571" data-attributes="member: 2011">My take on the ambiguous rules.First off, most of these rules are not ambiguous. The book clearly spells out what happens. The problem mostly comes in where Artoomis and/or others think that there is a balance issue, or what is written in the book is not what the designers intended, or what they think should be allowed.Just because people disagree on an interpretation does not mean that they are ambiguous. The language as literally written is often quite clear. It is often people’s bias’ or balance desires or focusing on one single sentence as opposed to the overall rules that end up muddying the waters for them.However, that does not make them ambiguous. It just means that people disagree. The list should probably be split up into several areas:Ambiguous RulesUnbalanced RulesIntended Rules (i.e. the designers intended differently, the text is accidentally incorrect)Variant RulesObscure RulesSo, my take on each of them is based on “my best” literal interpretation of the rules, not on what I think they should be. Note: I am only going to do the first half. I’ll leave the second half for another time.Ok, my take on each of them in the first half:1) Buckler w/two handed weapon.This is not ambiguous.Just like normal shields cannot be used with two handed weapons, neither can bucklers. The reason bows and two weapon fighting are mentioned is because they are exceptions to that rule. The fact that two handed weapons are not listed as an exception is that they are not.2. Mind Blank spell and what it blocks. (True Strike? Invisibility?)This is not ambiguous.The problem here is that the designer’s intent is different from what is written. It is not ambiguous, it was just incorrectly written. Hence, this should be put in a listed in an Intent section so that DMs can determine if they want to play it as intended, or if they want to play it as written.3. Advancement of a paladin's mount. (As an animal or Magical Beast? Any skill points or feats?) This is not ambiguous.The book clearly indicates what abilities the Paladin’s mount gets. Just because Masters of the Wild came out with a superior creature does not indicate that the Paladin’s mount should as well. This appears to be a Balance issue for people.4. Monk's use of a shield. (Can you or can you not use one without losing Wis bonus to AC, etc.?) This is not ambiguous.The book clearly indicates that a Shield is Armor. Hence, the Monk does not get the use of a Shield without penalty (including the lose of the Wis bonus to AC). This should be on a Variant rule list.5. Number and type of slots for non-humanoid creature magical items (There is a possible conflict between T&B familiar magical items rules and MotW animal magical item rules.) This is a non-existent rule in core. It is ambiguous because it is not discussed.I think the simplest solution is to give animals the same as humanoids except where it is obvious that they should not get it. For example, creatures without usable limbs should not be able to use rings, but most can use necklaces. This should be in either an Obscure or a Variant list.6. Haste and the 5-foot step. (Can you get a second 5-foot step with Haste?) This rule is not ambiguous, but it is extremely obscure. It has been fairly well illustrated that you cannot get a second 5-foot step. It should be on an Obscure list.7. How does the Fly Spell work when underwater? (Full speed, reduced speed, ot not at all?) This is not ambiguous.If the spell does not talk about underwater movement, it is because it is not allowed. Suggestions should be put into a Variant Rule section.8. What form does the shield spell take - and how do you determine half the battlefield? (Use a line in front of the character or use half the squares around the character?) This rule is ambiguous.Either solution will work. It should be put in an Ambiguous section.9. What movement is affected by Expeditious Retreat? (Everything derived from based speed - walk, run, swim, etc.; movement on land only - walk, charge, run, etc.; all forms of movement - fly, etc.?) This rule is ambiguous due to the phrase “Your speed and maximum jumping distance…”Literally taken, it allows you to make great leaps with your legs. Hence, any movement form that is based on leaping leg movement should be enhanced. So, this limits it to walk, charge, run, jump. However, since Swim speed is based on walking speed, it is ambiguous as to whether swimming is based on leg movement of “great leaps and bounds”. Other forms of movement (e.g. burrowing and flying) should not be enhanced. It should be put in an Ambiguous section.10. Threatening an area while unarmed. (Do you or don't you?) This is not ambiguous.The book clearly states that you threaten an area whenever you can make a melee attack. Having an armed attack (such as a Melee Attack, an Improved Unarmed Strike, or a Touch Attack) or an unarmed attack (Unarmed Strike) is irrelevant. These are all melee attack forms.In fact, page 140 states that unarmed attacks “is like attacking with a weapon, except for the following”.Since lack of threatening the area is not in that list of exceptions, it is not.The only rule that disallows you from threatening an area is when you are grappled. This should be on an Obscure list or an Intent list (since the Sage disagrees).11. Are gauntlets/helmets part of armor? (Can monks wear them without penalty?) This is ambiguous.Gauntlets are both weapons and a portion of armor. Helms are a portion of armor.It is ambiguous if a portion of armor has the same penalties as a set of armor. In the case of helms, they should not penalize the Monk anymore than a backpack would. Gauntlets are less clear, although they too do not have any form of armor penalties in and of themselves.Since neither of these give an armor bonus, they probably should not penalize the Monk either. This should be on a Balance list or an Ambiguous list.12. How does a Barbarian's DR work? (Does a Barbarian bypass another Barbarian's DR?) This is not ambiguous.Barbarian DR is totally different then normal DR for creatures or magical items.It is not the same thing. It has special rules on page 25 of the PHB.It is unfortunate that the designers gave it the same name, but the mechanic as written is totally different from normal DR and the normal DR rules obviously do not apply to it. It should be on an Obscure list.13. Does the Bless Weapon spell (Pal 1) bypass any amount of DR on an evil creature? (You could read it as either: Negates all DR on any evil creature or Negates DR as if it was a +1 weapon but only against evil creatures.) This is not ambiguous.The spell clearly states that it negates the DR of evil creatures.This could be put on a Obscure list, but I don’t really understand why people think this is not clear. The argument against appears to be a Balance issue, but who cares if you do 10 points of damage to a 500 hit point demi-god with this? If the demi-god is so powerful, it should have a high AC.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.)This is not ambiguous.The spell clearly states that it allows this to happen.However, it is also clear from the spell that the designers intended to limit the power of this spell. They just accidentally had a loop hole. This should be listed under an Intent section.15. Do Touch Attacks = weapons for all purposes? (One example - can you Coup de grace with a Touch Attack?) This is not ambiguous.The Coup de Grace text clearly states that you must use a melee weapon. Touch Attacks are armed attacks, but they are not melee weapons. This should be on a Variant rule list.16. Timestop. (What can and can't be done - what will work and what won't? If hasted, do you get additional partial actions?) This is not ambiguous.Time Stop gives you a set number of rounds. Haste gives you a set number of actions per round, even if those rounds exist within the Time Stop spell. Maybe this should go in an Obscure list, but it seems fairly clear.</blockquote>

Verification