What are the biggest rules debates?

[glass]

Only the Darkness one is really debated, though. The others are all unambiguous rules.

Plenty of unambiguous rules get debated all the time. The sneak attack one in particular seems to get about a thread a week, always following the same pattern:

OP: 'I can't find anywhere in the books where it says you can only use sneak attack once per round, but that is the rule, right?'

Everyone else: 'No. Any attack that meets the conditions is a sneak attack'

OP: 'But doesn't that make high level rogues really overpowered?'

Everyone else: 'No. Have you seen what high level barbarians or sorcerers can do?' or 'No. There are very few sneak attackable opponents at high level'


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

Two recent ones I remember where whether you could target a Mirror Image with a magic missile, and the Incense of Meditation one applying to all the spells of a character with divine spellcasting ability.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

Does a monk fighting with a longspear threaten with his unarmed strike, and if so, how does it work?

Only if he takes the appropriate penalties for fighting with two weapons.

Just to prove some of these points are debatable, I'm going to argue with myself.

The monk description says 'There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed'. This could be taken as allowing an exception to the usual TWF rules.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

Has anybody mentioned the grappling questions yet? How many grapple checks do creatures with natural attacks get, etc.

Pinotage

 

[Firael]

Just to prove some of these points are debatable, I'm going to argue with myself.

The monk description says 'There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed'. This could be taken as allowing an exception to the usual TWF rules.


glass.

Yes, He's when he is making his normal amount of attacks. If he's going to try to fight with two weapons he'd need a weapon (preferably monk weapon) in his main hand (or off hand but a quarterstaff in the offhand is not as good as the opposite.). Though that's my RAW interpretation. It might be wrong.
Personaly I rule that he can use his other limbs to do so. Normal Penalties for TwF apply

 

[glass]

Yes, He's when he is making his normal amount of attacks. If he's going to try to fight with two weapons he'd need a weapon (preferably monk weapon) in his main hand (or off hand but a quarterstaff in the offhand is not as good as the opposite.). Though that's my RAW interpretation. It might be wrong.

I think it's pretty clear that that line indicates a monk can't use TWF with his unarmed strike (IE, he needs a weapon). Whether it also allows him to threaten an area with his unarmed strike without taking TWF penalties is debateable.


glass.

 

[Storm Raven]

My group nearly melted down in a nasty fight a couple years ago over Attacks of Opportunity. By and large, the guys in my group HATE them, and won't even make one themselves. The quickest way to start a fight and stop a game in its tracks is to say "You enter the creature's threatened area."

Why? Entering a threatened area doesn't provoke an AoO? By and large, the rules concerning AoO's are ridiculously simple.

 

[reveal]

*points up to other posts*

RangerWickett, what hast thou wrought?!

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Why? Entering a threatened area doesn't provoke an AoO? By and large, the rules concerning AoO's are ridiculously simple.

I personally have some issues with the rules for AoO, but not enough to really get bent out of shape like some of the guys in my group do. Gads...it can get ugly.

 

[billd91]

::

This is open to 'interpretation'? I havent heard this one before.

The clarification about the spontaneous metamatic spells full round action being different from a 1 round casting time wasn't in the 3.0 version of the rules. Created lots of trouble because all 1 round casting times took a full round action to accomplish.