Most absurd rules

It's a weird thing to think about, but it's actually a well-considered reflection of the Taoist philosophy the game uses.

In 3.5 drowning is one of the best non-magical ways to stabilize a dying person.
In AD&D 2e all healing spells were Necromancy
In Rifts vampires are minons of Japanese-style Tentacle Monsters and can be killed with squirt guns filled with ordinary water.

>In 3.5 drowning is one of the best non-magical ways to stabilize a dying person.
Could you please elaborate? Never played 3.5e

>Could you please elaborate? Never played 3.5e
I only played it a few times, but I think that the rule as written states that if you drown, your HP instantly becomes 0 (even if your HP was previously -9).

It could have been avoided by additional clarifying language, but it basically says if you have negative HP, drowning will bring you up to 0.

Basically if you are drowning and then are taken out of the water your HP reset to exactly zero. At zero HP you are stable but unconscious. Therefore if you are at negative HP, which is unconscious and dying, when you start drowning as soon as you are out of the water you are heal to zero and merely unconscious.

holy shit im finally sold on GURPS

Bad news, user: I think that rule only applies to Cinematic GURPS.

Discworld Roleplaying Game has a similar rule for Barbadians. It's straight from the books.

Tbh I've been trying to get ino LotW for awhile now but this is the firts I've heard of that, what's the reasoning behind it? I mean most of the time stuff like that wont come up but since I'm gay my characters typically default to that too. Did I just get discriminated against? Maybe tumblr has a point... kidding, tumblrite-SJW's are cancer

Don't have my book with me, so I'm not sure on the details, but basically, sex in LotW means your energies and the energies of your partner interact. So, if a man has sex with a woman of comparable strength, these energies are in balance and everything is fine, but in other cases, sex may lead to imbalances. Two dudes giving each other sexy Yin energy would "overload" each other.
So yeah, it is somewhat discriminatory, but at least it sticks to a the universal metaphysical constants of the setting.

It's a Taoist thing. Sex exchanges energy, and gay sex risks giving the receiving one yang poisoning, since men are naturally abundant in it, and instead of safely bleeding off his excess, the catcher is instead getting even more shot into him.

Damn, it was Yang, wasn't it?

Conversely, lesbian sex is safe because women are abundant in yin, which doesn't travel during sex. So they can't reach yin-yang equilibrium with each other, but hey also can't hurt each other.

What about traps? If they have feminine aspects to their penis, is this mirrored in their spirit?

In the original Feng Shui game, you got penalized for bigger stunts and for trying to take out more than one mook at the same time. So in your game of Hong Kong Action Movie Roleplaying, the way to avoid failure was to be as safe, precise, and tactical as possible.

It can be applied anywhere you want. That's the point of a toolbox system. I'm thinking of letting my players buy the ability to use the rule in my fantasy game i'm running.

Traps are Yang

It is like that guy in Wild Cards that blocks his own ejaculations to retain his sexual energy and absorb some from his partner.

D&D 3.5
Imbued Healing + Luck Domain + that crusader maneuver that makes your damage dice explode.
Throw a shuriken (1d2 damage).
Luck imbued healing spell means you treat all 1s on damage rolls as 2s.
And 2 means you roll again and add it.
This means infinite damage. From a shuriken.
Best part is, part of this combo is from the 3.5 book that Veeky Forums fellates the most to justify their boner for 4th edition.
But it's also part of the brokenness.
Just goes to show that the more options a game has, the more likely some infinite combo bullshit will come up.
And this exploit? Has never come out in a real game.
Completely BTFOs Veeky Forums's "D&D having options is bad because 3.5 was bad" retard crowd.

>Traps are YAnG
ftfy

>D&D having options is bad because 3.5 was bad
No one says this.
People say "D&D having purposely shitty options masquerading as good ones is bad because we saw how it worked out in 3.5".

Well fuck... I guess pure and chaste warrior-monks will be my go-to then. This is all based in real-world philosophy and mysticism then? That's interesting, is there any further reading I could do?

Yeah, there's a trick called "The Omnificer" where an Artificer can get +infinity to all skills for an instant, basically allowing you to be omniscient, while also taking infinite damage. You then stick your head in a bucket of water and voluntarily fail the save before the damage resolves, causing your hp to become 0 instead.

What book is this from?

Basic Set.

You're missing a couple of things-
1. If the height was due to a jump, the first 1d6 damage taken is nonlethal instead of lethal.
2. You only fall prone if you take lethal damage from the fall.
3. You can make a super easy Acrobatics check to ignore the first 10ft of fall for the purposes of damage.

This means that your average wuxia monk can jump up 29ft into the air and land on their feet.

Avalon Hill games are known for their byzantine, and as historically accurate as possible rule sets.

I might have to steal this for other systems.

>In AD&D 2e all healing spells were Necromancy
That makes sense to me.

And if they're near a wall when they jump, they can use their slow fall ability to reduce the damage even further.

I don't know enough about the Taoist canon or tantrism to recommend any further reading, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to find online. That said, I *think* only penetrative sex is dangerous, and even then you can always take the talent toget around the danger. So it's not like chastity is your only option.

Even when you admit that something is real, you still feel the need to hate signal against the group you're now a part of.

There is a problem here, and it's not what you think it is.

Are you using an "internalized hatred" argument without a shred of irony right now?

>"D&D having purposely shitty options masquerading as good ones is bad because we saw how it worked out in 3.5"
And then they take it to say "5e books not putting new character options in the game is good because 3.5 put out way too many and most of them sucked therefore if 5e did it the same thing would happen."
Don't believe me? Post it in a 5e general thread and get the exact responses I outlined.

>There is a problem here, and it's not what you think it is.
The cancer is you, user.

In Rifts, each class includes a short blurb about whether or not they use any cybernetics and possibly a list of anything they always get as standard items. Full conversion heavy Borgs, aka the Brain-in-a-bot style, gain None: Prefers to rely on natural abilities.

As a regular poster in /5eg/, that's absolutely false. People are worried about unbalanced bullshit that doesn't get tested, not a single person complains about the UA Revised Ranger or the XGtE Divine Soul Sorcerer. People would be very upset if something like the Lore Wizard or the Mystic were to be published as they are instead of staying UA or being reworked because both of those classes are overpowered horseshit, yes, but no one is saying that 5e should remain as it is and not get options. The only people who ever said that less options were better said so with the caveat that playtesting is important and newer options should come out slower and with playtesting backing them up.
Also what the fuck are you talking about "5e books not putting new character options in the game?" SCAG, VGtM, EEPC, and Xanathar all included PC options, and the monthly UAs deal with character options at least 90% of the time.

I'm confused by this post. It seems to just be meme/buzzwords without any actual point.

If my character identifies as female do I pick up this trait for being topless?

Where does it say that you need to be female?

Only if they have amazing boobs.

>Topless females get an EXTRA +1

>Topless females gain an additional +1
right in the fucking pic, my dude.
do you have a moment to talk about how not all women have boobs
honestly surprised the tumblrites running 5th haven't inserted trans character rules yet

>Legitimately this fucking clueless

I guess I'm just blind

>spoiler
That's because all the actual and caustic ones don't work on 5e, they work for Paizo instead

I think you might be retarded.

>SCAG, VGtM, EEPC, and Xanathar all included PC options
Yeah, prepackaged bullshit archetypes. Pick one and done. They might as well just delete choice entirely.

>not receiving daily Yang injections to supplement your own Yang production and become supermacho
Fag.

That bonus is for females, not mentally ill homosexuals.

>mentally ill homosexuals.
Don't be a disgusting bigot user.
If they're still into chicks they're mentally ill heterosexuals.

I think it's only if the people attacking her identify her as female.

(You)

>muh downvote

>They might as well just delete choice entirely.
Good. Then maybe people will focus on playing the game instead of worrying about their ebin character build. The most interesting choices for your character should be made during gameplay and not when you create them.

God, as a GM I hate my players constantly umming and ah-ing over their builds and complaining to me that the system won't give them big enough numbers.

>they
you fucking bigot, ask muh pronouns first
best answer

Back on topic, does anyone have the peasant seige engine saved? Or the deep rot computer?

>When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

From a different part of the rules:

>Unconscious
>Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

It’s just undefined what happens if you are above 0 hp when you fail that first check. Also you don’t normally fall unconscious at 0hp. It’s just confusing all around.

In practice, unclear rules require interpretation and the intent here is pretty clear.

>ask muh pronouns first
Why would people get offended by "they" when it's a gender-nuetral pronoun that is commonly used for all genders, and works well for the context of the question since it refers to a collective/generalized group of theoretical people rather than a specific individual?

All I'm saying, is that PC Principal would not break my legs for using the phrase "they"

They don't. That was just the circlejerk stage of the reply chain

You must be 18 years age or older to browse Veeky Forums.

The really funny thing is that the "macaroni rule" isn't even historically accurate. Italian soldiers in WWII would cook their pasta in the cans of sauce that came with it. They didn't have to boil their drinking water.

The first printing of Palladium's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG made you check for mental derangements at chargen, including pedophilia.

I thought using the "muh" would make it clear how ironic i was being

Even better than Rifts full conversion cyborgs not being allowed cybernetics, in the Rifts main book, the rules for Mecha combat include:

You can not kick in Gerwalk mode.

That is the only reference to Gerwalk mode in the entire Rifts franchise, there is no Gerwalk mode in Rifts. I guess that means you can't punch in it either then?

The reason it's there is because when Kevin
cut-and-pastes from one book he's written to another, he literally uses scissors and glue, and he took the mecha combat chart from the older Robotech RPG he made under license from Harmony Gold.

Rifts always had the issue of being laid out manually on an analog type machine even after the rest of the universe started using computers. This, combined with the fact that Kevin Siembieda is a lazy hack fraud, meant that books would routinely see print where some parts referenced other parts that had been cut out, and lists would often be printed out of alphabetical order because he wanted to add something but didn't want to change the layout of every page after it.

Don’t have the picture to go with it, but Hive Tyrants used to be equipped with “claws, teeth, and a bad attitude” in second edition.

what's the WS for the bad attitude?

How is Gerwalk mode not a fucking meme at this point? That's perfect.
probably because nobody I know has ever heard of rifts
Reminds me of the 4th ed ork codex
>A warboss may not take both a warbike and mega-armour, as he would fall off a lot.
Every time I open an ork codex and that isn't there I die a little inside.

Because the term Gerwalk doesn't even exist in Robotech. It was called Guardian Mode in Robotech. Gerwalk is the term from Macross.

This is exciting. Makes me want to make a character that jumps around the battlefield like a flea. Sounds like a 55 foot jumping charge, is that legal for a charge?

As an addendum to the rules specified by others, and in case it's not obvious, the 3.5 drowning-to-heal thing isn't an intentional rule. It's the result of a simple oversight on the part of how the rules for two different things interact with one another.

It's not even an unprecedented oversight, sort of: in Super Mario 64, if Mario stayed underwater for too long, his health decreased, but on surfacing his health would be restored to full. This would happen even if some, most, or all of the missing health had been caused by damage, not drowning.

>tfw feeling hungrier now

Can we talk about the lack of a rule?

In Fantasy Age they have rules for mounted combat, a riding skill... and no horse prices. How much does a horse cost? We forgot to include that. Enjoy. And horse stats are in the bestiary book.

>Are you using the "my minority group doesn't give me free reign to randomly be an asshole" fact without a shred of irony right now?

>honestly surprised the tumblrites running 5th haven't inserted trans character rules yet
Trans characters have been esplicitly allowed by the rulebooks. As you might guess, the usual suspects have been outraged about this intolerable act of "forced pandering" since the day it was written.

Reminded me of irrelevant bullshit
>be me, few years ago now
>running a game in some edition of D&D, probably 3.5 (I was young, shut up)
>players ask to buy horses for the first time ever since I started DMing
>ask price
>fuck if I know, and I don't want to crack open a book for something seemingly so common and hunt for a price I'm not sure of and look like an idiot
>"Uhhh, the stablehand says that the two healthier draft horses are 1000g each and the older mare that has worked in the fields for years is 750g. The pony is 600g."
>players haggle with the guy for a few minutes, because that was a shitload of money
>they get the total down to something like 3000g for all four, with saddles and bridles and shit "thrown in" for an extra 200g on top of that
>might have gotten lower if they had rolled anything higher than a 10 for social skills
>no one appraises the horses or asks any other stablehands
>no one questions anything
>FOUR MONTHS LATER
>one of the players is browsing the PHB for some everyday items they wanted to buy for dungeoneering
>"HEY DM WHAT THE FUCK, HORSES ARE LIKE 75G"
>everyone starts staring at the equipment page in the book where normal horses are clearly marked as such
>I simply say "Would you look at that" and try to carry on
>the session is derailed for an hour while everyone tries to figure out if I'm a terrible DM or if they're just idiots
The one guy left from that campaign that still games with me still tells that story. When he tells it, it's "the story of how the DM was a fuckwit and made up outrageous bullshit to cover his ass." When I tell it, it's "the story of how a simple stableboy made a couple grand off people with no idea what the value of a dollar is."

Really? It was basically Chef Boy-Ar-Dee with a metallic aftertaste.

that's what slow fall is for
Just stick near walls.

in pathfinder (unsure of in 3.x) anything with a weight listed as a (---) ment it was negligible. Large boats are listed as such but not smaller boats.

>legal for a charge
Depends on what you mean.

A charge is a full round action. You could jump as part of a charge.
And you could fall as a charge if you started midair.
But to jump then charge as you fall is a move+full.

To jump as part of a charge is normal charge movement, just tacking on a jump acrobatics check. Which is also what just tumbling through the enemy you're hypothetically jumping over would be. Plus, if you pass within 5 feet of them (you need 5 foot of clearance, 10 if reach weapon) you would need to make a tumble check anyways for moving in a threatened area. So for whether it's worth it, it really comes down to how high you're getting and what their CMD is. Jump is easier to add bonuses to, but the check required to get the mad air necessary to make it worth it is way higher than their likely CMD.

And to start your turn midair obviously takes a LOT of clearance. Alternately, if you have a way of using Abundant Step as part of a charge, or as a swift action, those are legal during full round actions, weirdly enough.

In any case, this is a lot of hoops for not much benefit. If I were the DM though I would give you falling object damage on top of your attack damage. Medium object from 10-149 feet, you gain 3d6. It makes sense, and rewards you for your very creative, heavily invested dragoon build. I like to reward when players who endure mechanical suboptimality for the sake of flavor or coolness when I can. I deal with less muchkining when people realize they won't be penalized as hard for not optimizing. Of course, if Paizo didn't build their game with the same mindset MtG designs cards, with intentional trap options so autistic players feel smart avoiding them, I wouldn't have to do that.

If you really want to do this, Kirin monk of four winds has it built in.

negligibly high.

Just like the answer to a matchstick's -- is not a number but a blank check yes, the answer to a large ship's weight is not a number but a blank check no.

I would say most certainly.

...

So the characters had no knowledge of how much horses are worth?

Back in 3.5 there was a special feat for this, Leap Attack. When making a charge, if you jump at least 10 feet before making your attack, your power attack bonus doubles.

Funny enough, and relevant to this thread, exactly what the feat meant in terms of increasing damage varied from interpreter to interpreter. "Doubles" could mean it's a 2x multiplier, and stacking multipliers in 3.5 always subtracted one. Or, "doubles" could be a hard statement, and the traditional power attack bonus of -1/+1 for one handed and -1/+2 for two handed could be a set rate, not a multiplier. If you have a 2 handed weapon, you make power attacks at -1/+2, but the book version of the feat was so poorly written that I saw players arguing Leap Attack gave as much as -1/+5 and DMs arguing as little as -1/+2. Even the official errata ("+100%") was unclear, again leaving the possibility of -1/+3 or -1/+4. It seems now that after all has been said and all has been done, the official ruling is -1/+3 for two handed Leap Attacks.

And all because Wizards insisted on using naturalistic prose to describe the ability, and not just a simple pair of numbers like I just did.

youtube.com/watch?v=IkXxmMUIx8k

You ever hear about Ear Seekers?

Apparently not if they were willing to pay a nearly 1000% markup no questions asked

And whose fault is it that characters don't know the things they should know?