Weird system quirks

Nowhere in 3.5e does it say that a paladin is obligated to follow the commandments of their deity. They are only required to act within their alignment.

Monks are not proficient with unarmed strike in 3.5e for some reason. They get a lot of class features related to unarmed striking, but the RAW tells you to take a -4 non-proficiency penalty because none of those feats or features actually grant proficiency. This nonsense could have been prevented by listing unarmed strike in their proficiency, but it's only loosely implied because none of the monk features require proficiency either.

In the 4e PHB 3, the battlemind class basically has a glaring weak point according to RAW. The blurred step power is an opportunity action that takes up your chance to use an opportunity attack, meaning all an intelligent monster has to do is shift away to use up your action, and then use charge to attack your ally. This is a metagamey tactic, but the other defenders don't have such holes in their defense.

Also in the PHB 3 are the power point classes, which have higher level at-will powers that have psionic augmentation instead of encounter powers. The paragon-level attacks require twice as many points to augment fully, and the epic powers thrice as many. This results in a confusing scaling where you are better off spending points on heroic powers than epic-tier powers unless the DM houserules a power point cost decrease for high tier powers.

>Nowhere in 3.5e does it say that a paladin is obligated to follow the commandments of their deity. They are only required to act within their alignment.

This rules lawyering is why people hate 3.5

There is a reason 3.PF has a statement "all classes are proficient in unarmed strikes" under combat.

More specifically, this rules lawyering is why people hate PLAYERS of 3.5. Like OP.

Or how monks can't multiclass without losing leveling into monk ever again. Only exception is half-ork monks oddly enough, they can level into barbarian without any issues as its a "racial" thing.

>People hate players of 3.5

I dunno after learning on 3.5 5E and D20 are piddling easy. Tried 2.5 but fuck THAC0, it is absolutely illogical.

You still roll high in THAC0

d20 + (Modifiers) > THAC0 - Target AC

But isn't that a two step mental process compared to AC which is one? Not trying to be autistic about it.

THAC0 and BAB are literally the same thing. It's just that the AC is modifier to the target number of the die in one and a modifier to the target number of the sum in the other.

I'm not entirely sure why they designed THAC0 the way they did, but I always found it faster.

It's the same number of steps. Your THAC0 is modified by the weapon you're using and your strength and proficiency bonuses, so that junk isn't going to change and doesn't need to be recalculated every roll. (Just like how you don't have to add BAB + weapon + STR every time in 3e either, you just write it on your sheet.)

So the only calculation you actually do is THAC0 minus their armor, which is the target number for your die roll. If you roll that number or above, congrats, you hit him!

Works exactly like 3e, except the ultimate goal of "solve for x" is the target number of the die roll, rather than a comparison of the weighted attack roll vs the AC value.

Addition is more intuitive than subtraction

You're such a try-hard contrarian. Why are you even on a D&D board if you're just here to complain about it?

Identifying a creature requires passing a DC of 10+the monster's HD (thus, minimum 11) of the most relevant Knowledge skill.
Untrained Knowledge checks are explicitly "simply Intelligence checks" and can only achieve results of 10 or lower. Even if you roll a 20, you effectively rolled a 10.
This means: if you do not have any ranks in Knowledge (Local), you have no real idea what a human is and cannot even identify your own species.

d20 + AC + (modifiers) >= THAC0

False, at least for 3.5.

Extrapolating further, if you have no Knowledge ranks whatsoever, even if you have 25 INT you can't tell an aboleth from a treant.

I dunno, I find single-digit calculations to be faster than double-digit calculations. It's not rocket surgery either way, but I'd wager most people can perform 16 - 7 faster than they can perform 17 + 19.

So like monster hunter where you can have everyone tell you everything there is to know about a monster, have slaughtered it 30 times across three different rankings, and still have no entries about what the monster is because you didn't buy a stupid fucking book from the shop?

It isn't. The THAC0 - AC portion is on the DM's side of the combat algorithm because as written, enemy AC is theoretically unknown to the player except by induction.

In theory, the DM isn't giving out the AC of creatures

Just because you spam D&D flavored bait doesn't mean that the board is a "D&D board."

>Nowhere in 3.5e does it say that a paladin is obligated to follow the commandments of their deity. They are only required to act within their alignment.
That goes back to AD&D. Paladins never served gods, they've always served their alignment. Gods served alignments back then too.

This is not a D&D board. It’s even a RPG board.

It’s not even*

In Warhammer 5th edition, Going to Ground meant you had to physically place models on their sides. Combine with TLOS.

Why would you hide this from players?

>"I attack the monster. I rolled a 19."
>"You hit him, but can't begin to guess whether it was easy or hard to pierce its hide."

The 4e Battlemind was errata'd so that blurred step is a free action

That's not rules lawyering. Rules lawyering is generating an infinite amount of quarterstaves as a free action

Pretty sure it says somewhere in the monster manual that all creatures are proficient with their natural attacks, and unarmed strike counts as a natural attack. Could be wrong. But I've seen plenty of commoner stat blocks in the 3.5 books that show an unarmed strike at no penalty, so I think it's proof by induction or whatever.

Also keep in mind: I'm pretty sure that the 3.5 rules don't say you can't take actions in combat when you're dead. Food for thought.

>power point scaling
The lower level powers were often (but not always) either lower damage or with less (or less useful) effects, leading a character to have to chose the utility of a relatively cheaper augment or taking a powerful augment for a 'bigger boom'
I posted an example from the PHB3. Lightning Rush (Level 7) and Armor of Blades (Level 23) both have the "Use your next standard action now as an immediate inturrupt" thing going, triggered by basically the same enemy action, and the larger augment gives you back your standard action. But the higher level one doesn't just hit the target, you also impose a penalty to the target's attack, and at higher augments the difference is being the target of the triggering attack (L7) or moving the target away from the ally, which may invalidate the triggering attack (L23) all together.
Of course this is just one example, and just as in many editions of D&D there are low-level abilities that stay a good option at late game (a few low-level battlemind powers allow using them as opportunity attacks, which may be a good option for some builds into the late-game)

Funny, despite shifting the attack to yourself by default, the level 23 version is just plain worse on account of losing pretty much all of it's range

If that's all that you think matters then I don't really know what to tell you.

Commoners are proficient with simple weapons IIRC. Monks are a notable exception because they are not proficient with all simple weapons for some reason.

Side note, the battlemind lore may be the shittiest creative concept in all of 4e. They could have had this concept of a psionic body-overclocker, but instead their lore is just rephrasing "all battleminds are assholes" repeteadly.

No, the other important factor is that it costs 4 less power points to keep your standard action

Yuck, this is exactly what I was talking about. If you spend two power points on the heroic version, you get your standard action back. You have to spend 6 power points to do that with the epic version, and the reward relative to the augment 2 heroic power is one weapon die. This is a rate of 4 power points for a weapon die. If you just spammed heroic powers, you get a weapon die for the rate of 2 power points.

The epic power has slightly better utility, but the heroic power does more damage for the resources expended. This is the opposite of using heroic powers for utility and epic powers for more power.

Keep in mind that by the time other classes are at epic levels, they are already doing multiple weapon dice of damage at-will with no cost, so augment 2 of the epic power is basically what other classes do without spending anything. This would make so much more sense if the high augments were slightly cheaper. Paragon augments reduced to 3 and epics reduced to 5 would help so much.

I've never crunched out the battlemind, but the psion was a charop mess because the best way to keep up with your party's power level and contribute to encounters was to just augment 2 every round.

?

They are proficient with ONE simple weapon.
Although, my point is invalid either way, because monks are never given a penalty of -4.

Technically, by RaW, you can construct a quaterstaff for no cost (PHB, pg 116)

By RaW, an item with no cost takes no time to make and has no cost in terms of materials (craft rules, PHB pg 70)

This means that, by RaW, you can, at any time you want, with no check, instantly generate infinity quarterstaves

>Unarmed strike
Look at the rules for natural attacks. A creature is always proficient with it's natural weapons, and an unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

You're hitting him either way, rounds lasted a monute back then, the question is "are you wearing them down much?"

Well, 3.5 had power attack, where you chose a variable penalty on your to-hit (up to a max of your base attack) and added the penalty to your damage. Kind of like a called shot, in some ways, although it was fluffed that you were sacrificing accuracy for brute force.

So. knowing how hard a creature was to hit, let you know how much to take off in your Power Attack.

That was 3.5 , though.

That's definitely not a core thing. Even if it was that would require you to be both of a lawful alignment and a non-lawful alignment at the same time. The only exceptions I was aware of were certain prestige classes

I mean, YOU have knowledge of the monster, it's just not written down in a the in-game book.

Battleminds are literally the best concept in 4e. Their lore isn't that they're assholes, its that they're warriors with subconscious psionic abilities they use to bridge the gap between their perception of themselves and reality. In short they're warriors powered by ego or willpower, classic shonen shit. They also make good for people who couldn't have become heroes otherwise, for instance someone obsessed with fairytail heroics but lacking in strength, whose latent psionic ability lets them pretend to be hot shit and save the day.

Natural weapons are distinct from Unarmed strikes in the rules.
>Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
>Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
>You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed.
If Unarmed strikes were natural weapons, that would do nothing.

They are also listed separately in Grapple description.
>You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling.

Monks gain the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and additionally:
>A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Note that it is only considered a natural weapon in certain circumstances. Unarmed strike is also found in the Weapons table, unlike natural weapons.

Unarmed strike has no cost in the Weapon table. Can you craft an infinite amount of Unarmed strikes in an instant?

Unnarmed Strike in 3.x is treated as compatible with Natural Attack rules, and all creatures are proficient with their natural weapons.

In the theme of the thread though, the Master of the Unseen Hand prestige class advances caster level for Telekinesis and nothing else. If you have Telekinesis as a natural SLA which scales off of HD though, you gain +2 CL per level in the class. Since TK's weaponized features use CL as BAB for attacks, this means you can potentially have a BAB of +25/+20/+15/+10/+5 at 20th level, gaining a fifth iterative attack when most full BAB classes are capped at 4. You can further make weird use of this by continuing Master of the Unseen Hand beyond 5th level starting at ECL 21, continuing to gain double BAB for each level which, depending on how you apply the epic attack bonus scaling (+1 per every two levels regardless of the class level). This results in a mostly useless character but one with the highest attack bonuses for its ECL and rapidly out-scaling AC defenses.

When players figure out exactly how hard they are supposed to swing at something to maximize DPR, is that necessarily bad? I guess I'm just not sure why it's so awful that a master swordsman should be able to figure out exactly how balance swing strength vs accuracy. I mean, maybe you object to players feeling like they should have to do algebra to swing an axe, but hiding the AC doesn't make the "having to do math to be optimal" problem go away, it just throws a cloth over it and pretends it's not there.

>When players figure out exactly how hard they are supposed to swing at something to maximize DPR, is that necessarily bad?
No but I like making them work for it. Gives the martials something to do: observe the fight, know that "okay 17 misses but 23 hits, I've got a +20 to hit so I should probably take at least 2-3 off." or something like that.

Don't try to be a rules lawyer; DM has ultimate say.

Technically no, because you can not "construct" a natural weapon, and an Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon

>Unnarmed Strike in 3.x is treated as compatible with Natural Attack rules, and all creatures are proficient with their natural weapons.
Source, preferably with a page number? This has been bothering me for years.

in the d&d adventuring gear list it says that bags are only 1 square foot. it also says you can buy stronger locks if the gm allows but for some reason not bigger bags.

Combing through the books again casts doubt on the natural weapons argument.

The monster manual was no help and didn't mention proficiency once.

Page 24 of the PHB explains that classes list what proficiency they grant to a character.

Druids are explicitly given proficiency with all natural weapons on page 35.

Page 40 lists the monk's proficiencies.

Simple weapon proficiency is a feat on page 91/100 that grants the ability to attack with simple weapons without suffering a -4.
"All characters except for druids, monks, rogues, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat."

I would love for somebody to put this to rest, but the response to pointing out that a small amount of RAI is required for the monk to work doesn't seem to jog anybody's memory.

>They are only required to act within their alignment.
To quote the book: "Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness"
And from litterally one paragraph below that:
"Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough. Those who align themselves with particular religions prefer Heironeous (god of valor) over all others, but some paladins follow Pelor (the sun god). Paladins devoted to a god are scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in every associated temple"

>Monks are not proficient with unarmed strike in 3.5e for some reason.
To quote the book: "Unarmed Strike: Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so. At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat"
Description of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat: Considered armed even when unarmed
There's no such thing as a "regular unarmed strike" feat in the feats section.

I just opened the PDF of the 3.5e players handbook to double check this.

congratulations, you quoted a bunch of nothing, and you're the same basic poster that looks at technicalities on the surface and assumes they don't exist just because he doesn't understand them.

>To quote the book: "Unarmed Strike: Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so.
No proficiency here.

>At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat"
Description of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat: Considered armed even when unarmed
Still no proficiency here. That feat does not require or provide proficiency with any weapon.

>There's no such thing as a "regular unarmed strike" feat in the feats section.
Basic and possibly suffering from a learning disability.

>Knowledge (Loca
Does not identify humans.

Nice >implying memes easily triggered autist.

You do realize that Improved Unarmed Strike means that you're considered armed and therefor don't suffer the penalty for attacking as if you were not armed right?

Also in the combat section it reads:
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of twoweapon attack penalties and so on). Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify

Are you triggered because there's no spot that specifically says you have to be proficient in your fists to use them? Does my monk have to be proficient in his dick to jerk off then?

Forgot to include the most important part:

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to strike a particularly vulnerable spot to deal lethal damage. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Literally disproves your entire -4 argument right there.

I do apologize, you really are disabled.

>You do realize that Improved Unarmed Strike means that you're considered armed and therefor don't suffer the penalty for attacking as if you were not armed right?
That's not the penalty in question. The -4 comes from not being proficient with the weapon.

>Are you triggered because there's no spot that specifically says you have to be proficient in your fists to use them? Does my monk have to be proficient in his dick to jerk off then?
Unarmed strike is a simple weapon listed on page 116.

The -4 penalty for attacking with a weapon and not being proficient with it is on page 112.

That's a completely unrelated penalty.

I like the brainlet memes, you're accidentally using them as an avatar here.

How many days have you been here, and is English your first language?

lmao 3.5e players

Holy fuck, I was copying and pasting the text from the PDF itself, you need to calm the fuck down and stop being so triggered and giving me all these free (You)'s and samefagging.

I don't even like or play 3.5e, it's a broken system, but god damn dude calm your tits or you're gonna have a heart attack.

itt

Different user. An omission or let's say oversight does not imply monks take a -4 penalty due non proficiency with an unarmed strike. Why? Because of an overwhelming amount of evidence can be presented from official 3.5 D&D monk NPC write ups that show that a -4 penalty has at no time been factored in to attack within a stat block.

I also like how now you're actually pointing to some real examples instead of just REEEEing at me.

Yes, technically it does make sense now that the -4 penalty is a different one, even though there's two -4 penalties affecting the same thing in extremely similar ways.

You know you could have just replied to me without jerking your ding-dong and acting like a smartass, being so smug because you saw an inconsistent rule that some other people didn't see. Shit like that immediately makes me think you're some fag from Reddit.

>Stating a block of rules in the book is now a stupid uneducated opinion

idk man, I wasn't the dude that downloaded three no brains man pictures just to show everybody that he can't read. I don't really know how you can recover from that.

Seriously, go back to Plebbit.
>I'll call him a retard multiple times in my first reply because I'm edgy.
>I'm going to screencap his posts because it'll be so embarrassing for him. It's not like we're on an Anonymous message board and he'll probably never see these posts again.
>He's no match for me, a superior mind *tips fedora*
>I have no good insult to leave on, so I'm just gonna call him a stupid head.
You can reply if you want, I'm gonna close this tab and continue reading the other threads.

This is a thread about system quirks, we don't care what was actually meant.

Speaking of which, the drowning/suffocation rules:
>When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she fallsunconscious(0 hit points).

If a character is already dying, can you suffocate them to 0 hp?

>bitching out
lmao what a pussy

I love threads like this!

Some game system has a flanking mechanic where fighting an enemy from two sides at once gives an advantage. The weirdness sets in when two heroes flank a monster, a second monster comes up to flank one of the heroes, a third hero comes to flank the second monster and so on, basically turning battles into conga-lines of people and monsters flanking each other.

There's also a thief-class ability for squeezing into tight spaces, and with reasonable levels of it a thief could crawl inside someones asshole to sneak-attack them from inside.

There's also a game where the ability to use a weapon is determined by characters strength and size, meaning that the only character in the game that could wield a battle axe is a six foot dwarf.

>I would love for somebody to put this to rest
Monks not being proficient in unarmed is fucking retarded. This has now been put to rest.

>Monks not being proficient in unarmed is fucking retarded.
>3.5 rules as written not being retarded

This doesn't actually solve anything.

No, because the dying condition isn't removed by suffocation, only by stabilizing or healing.

A lot of people ignore that fact.

In the section on combat in PF Core book, it states "all characters are proficient in unarmed attacks".

This could have been a really cool thread where we all shared our favorite systems and their weird fiddly bits, but no. It's shit. It's 70+/75 posts worth of shit.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.