Ambiguous issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ambiguous issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Winnipegger
05-16-06, 05:21 PM Since Wizards apparently reads these forums, I figure I should bring to light certain issues that contain table variation, where the small minority of that table variation gives the annoying but inarguable ruling.

(1) Glitterdust. At the vast majority of the tables I've played at, the DM ruled that it negated invisibility. However, the PHB doesn't say one way or another that it actually does. It says it "visibly outlines invisible things for the duration of the spell" but it doesn't say it negates invisibility. As a result, the DM argues there's still a 50% miss chance but the target's location is known and targetable. I personally believe it to work to negate invisibility (since the "Invisibility, Superior" spell in the SpC lists glitterdust as what the subject immune to), but at the same time believe in a DM's right to rule on this grey area.

(2) A monk's ki strike (magic) or ranged magic weapons vs. incorporeal targets. Upon gaining 4th level, a monk's unarmed strikes are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. The description itself doesn't say ki strike (magic) also works for the purposes of incorporeality (i.e. treated as a magic weapon, 50% damage immunity). An issue that goes hand-in-hand with this is whether ranged weapons affect incorporeal creatures the same way. The DMG (page 221) states "ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." Again, it does not mention how ranged weapons work for the purposes of incorporeality, causing table variation. I personally believe both the monk's ki strike(magic) and ranged magic weapons should work against incorporeal creatures as if they were magic weapons, but there will be a small number of DMs who would rule otherwise. I'm hoping this gets clarified so there will be only one ruling (preferably the one I wish it to be).

Unfortunately, an example where this issue *is* actually specified is under the Bless Weapon description on page 207: "The weapon is treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus for the purpose of bypassing the damage reduction of evil creatures or striking evil incorporeal creatures (though the spell doesn't grant an actual enhancement bonus)." For that reason, maybe an errata -or- FAQ can be issued for the above issues.

If anyone would like to add to the above list or make corrections (preferably with references, so the references are argued and not opinions), please do so. The rulings I talk about are those where a tiny minority of DMs would rule a certain way, and you as the player feels it to be an annoying or unjust ruling, yet at the same time cannot argue because the letter of the rule stands as a gray area. Please refrain from topics where the issue is too ambiguous.
Madfox11
05-17-06, 04:02 AM Since Wizards apparently reads these forums, I figure I should bring to light certain issues that contain table variation, where the small minority of that table variation gives the annoying but inarguable ruling.

The LG Circle reads this board, I am not too sure the D&D designers do so. If you want to bring things to their attention you are better of mailing your questions to WotC customer service. Remember that the Circle is not going to give rulings on the grey areas in D&D mechanics, doing so would open a pandorra's box. Making these rulings are up to your DM and on gamedays and conventions the senior DM.

Note that I personally never heard of any DM applying the rules in a fashion as you noted and any such decision would lead to raised eyebrows in our region.

Pieter Sleijpen
Living Greyhawk Circle Member
The Splintered Suns Metaregion
Winnipegger
05-17-06, 04:23 AM Based on this quote in the sticky: "However, just because the draft discussion period is ending, doesn't mean that you can't discuss rules on the Living Greyhawk campaign in this forum. This is a permanent home for rules discussion, and feel free to talk about any appropriate topic here. Of course, topics that were off-limits during the LGCS draft discussion period are open for debate as of 2/10/06. Periodically, campaign staff members visit, and hot topics that might need clarification or change may be addressed in future Dispel Confusion articles. Your input continues year round!"

I was under the impression campaign staff members *do* visit, and it wasn't my intention to issue a Circle ruling on these issues. But if campaign staff is meant to be Circle members, then I misinterpreted what was said in the sticky note.

As for bringing this attention to customer support, I will do so, but I'd still like this thread to be a centralized place for annoying rules decisions on certain issues made by a small percentage of DMs. That way, all such rules are rolled into one, and as a whole has a better chance of being brought to somebody's attention (by somebody, I mean someone closer to WotC).
redgamer
05-17-06, 10:59 AM The rules that sticky note refer to are campaign rules not D&D rules. You can certaintly have an intelligent conversation on D&D rules here but if you need a rule clarified officially your best bet is to send piazo a letter for their sage column, and send ask wizards and customer service an e-mail. This is where Wizard looks to see what question are frequently asked. They then might appear in the FAQ which is effectively the only way to make ambiguous rules unambiguous in LG
Howie23
05-17-06, 12:33 PM As for bringing this attention to customer support, I will do so, but I'd still like this thread to be a centralized place for annoying rules decisions on certain issues made by a small percentage of DMs. That way, all such rules are rolled into one, and as a whole has a better chance of being brought to somebody's attention (by somebody, I mean someone closer to WotC).

The centralized place for such things is WotC Customer Service; that isn't just closer to WotC, it IS WotC. Here, we can work out understandings, attempt to persuade, etc. But, the defined mechanism for getting annoying variant rulings codified to your liking is to send the question to WotC CS with the hopes that it makes it to the FAQ. The CS response is a non-binding guideline. If it makes it to the FAQ, it becomes a campaign wide standard.

David

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Winnipegger 05-16-06, 05:21 PM	Since Wizards apparently reads these forums, I figure I should bring to light certain issues that contain table variation, where the small minority of that table variation gives the annoying but inarguable ruling. (1) Glitterdust. At the vast majority of the tables I've played at, the DM ruled that it negated invisibility. However, the PHB doesn't say one way or another that it actually does. It says it "visibly outlines invisible things for the duration of the spell" but it doesn't say it negates invisibility. As a result, the DM argues there's still a 50% miss chance but the target's location is known and targetable. I personally believe it to work to negate invisibility (since the "Invisibility, Superior" spell in the SpC lists glitterdust as what the subject immune to), but at the same time believe in a DM's right to rule on this grey area. (2) A monk's ki strike (magic) or ranged magic weapons vs. incorporeal targets. Upon gaining 4th level, a monk's unarmed strikes are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. The description itself doesn't say ki strike (magic) also works for the purposes of incorporeality (i.e. treated as a magic weapon, 50% damage immunity). An issue that goes hand-in-hand with this is whether ranged weapons affect incorporeal creatures the same way. The DMG (page 221) states "ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." Again, it does not mention how ranged weapons work for the purposes of incorporeality, causing table variation. I personally believe both the monk's ki strike(magic) and ranged magic weapons should work against incorporeal creatures as if they were magic weapons, but there will be a small number of DMs who would rule otherwise. I'm hoping this gets clarified so there will be only one ruling (preferably the one I wish it to be). Unfortunately, an example where this issue is actually specified is under the Bless Weapon description on page 207: "The weapon is treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus for the purpose of bypassing the damage reduction of evil creatures or striking evil incorporeal creatures (though the spell doesn't grant an actual enhancement bonus)." For that reason, maybe an errata -or- FAQ can be issued for the above issues. If anyone would like to add to the above list or make corrections (preferably with references, so the references are argued and not opinions), please do so. The rulings I talk about are those where a tiny minority of DMs would rule a certain way, and you as the player feels it to be an annoying or unjust ruling, yet at the same time cannot argue because the letter of the rule stands as a gray area. Please refrain from topics where the issue is too ambiguous.
Madfox11 05-17-06, 04:02 AM	Since Wizards apparently reads these forums, I figure I should bring to light certain issues that contain table variation, where the small minority of that table variation gives the annoying but inarguable ruling. The LG Circle reads this board, I am not too sure the D&D designers do so. If you want to bring things to their attention you are better of mailing your questions to WotC customer service. Remember that the Circle is not going to give rulings on the grey areas in D&D mechanics, doing so would open a pandorra's box. Making these rulings are up to your DM and on gamedays and conventions the senior DM. Note that I personally never heard of any DM applying the rules in a fashion as you noted and any such decision would lead to raised eyebrows in our region. Pieter Sleijpen Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Metaregion
Winnipegger 05-17-06, 04:23 AM	Based on this quote in the sticky: "However, just because the draft discussion period is ending, doesn't mean that you can't discuss rules on the Living Greyhawk campaign in this forum. This is a permanent home for rules discussion, and feel free to talk about any appropriate topic here. Of course, topics that were off-limits during the LGCS draft discussion period are open for debate as of 2/10/06. Periodically, campaign staff members visit, and hot topics that might need clarification or change may be addressed in future Dispel Confusion articles. Your input continues year round!" I was under the impression campaign staff members do visit, and it wasn't my intention to issue a Circle ruling on these issues. But if campaign staff is meant to be Circle members, then I misinterpreted what was said in the sticky note. As for bringing this attention to customer support, I will do so, but I'd still like this thread to be a centralized place for annoying rules decisions on certain issues made by a small percentage of DMs. That way, all such rules are rolled into one, and as a whole has a better chance of being brought to somebody's attention (by somebody, I mean someone closer to WotC).
redgamer 05-17-06, 10:59 AM	The rules that sticky note refer to are campaign rules not D&D rules. You can certaintly have an intelligent conversation on D&D rules here but if you need a rule clarified officially your best bet is to send piazo a letter for their sage column, and send ask wizards and customer service an e-mail. This is where Wizard looks to see what question are frequently asked. They then might appear in the FAQ which is effectively the only way to make ambiguous rules unambiguous in LG
Howie23 05-17-06, 12:33 PM	As for bringing this attention to customer support, I will do so, but I'd still like this thread to be a centralized place for annoying rules decisions on certain issues made by a small percentage of DMs. That way, all such rules are rolled into one, and as a whole has a better chance of being brought to somebody's attention (by somebody, I mean someone closer to WotC). The centralized place for such things is WotC Customer Service; that isn't just closer to WotC, it IS WotC. Here, we can work out understandings, attempt to persuade, etc. But, the defined mechanism for getting annoying variant rulings codified to your liking is to send the question to WotC CS with the hopes that it makes it to the FAQ. The CS response is a non-binding guideline. If it makes it to the FAQ, it becomes a campaign wide standard. David