Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caelic 05-29-06, 11:29 AM	While the boards make much of RAW, the truth is that, in general, the process of determining "RAW" is highly skewed. If a given rule/interpretation makes builds weaker (the infamous Page 16 rules, for instance,) then there will be those who will seek any rationale for declaring it "not RAW," no matter how flimsy. If a given rule/interpretation makes builds stronger ("Rainbow Servant and all of the other limited casting classes in CD are really full casting classes!") then there are those who will swear steadfastly that it's RAW--even when it's demonstrated that it's not. This, to me, is a significant problem, and one of the main reasons I consider the term "RAW" to be utterly useless at this point. There's a huge double standard, biased very heavily in favor of "Which interpretation makes characters more powerful?" Battle Jump is another good example. How often do we see characters who simply ignore the "Taer" requirement entirely? Some of them, at least, take the levels of Local Knowledge, but others simply shrug and take the feat--because it's powerful, it lets them do lots of damage, and, by golly, they don't see why they shouldn't be able to take it. Of course, they then turn around and say, "By RAW, Battle Jump lets me multiattack. I take a full attack, cast a Quickened Dimension Door, and drop down on my opponent from five feat up. That means I get another full attack." Am I way off base here? Has anyone else noticed how utterly subjective "RAW" is?
djinni 05-29-06, 11:35 AM	no you aren't off base, the term RAW, is mainly used on the boards, with little impact. there isn't a build I've seen that truly applies to the written rules 100% and you can't, so that by itself is not a large problem, the main problem is that interpretation of written material becomes contested. a large number of arguements are used by quoting something and then finishing with "seems pretty clear to me." if it was clear there wouldn't be a grey area.
tsuyoshikentsu 05-29-06, 12:00 PM	Well, here's the problem. I look at some things that are RAW and say, "Okay, there are obvious contradictions here." For instance, by the Page 16 rule, if I went Commoner 1/Survivor 1, I'd no longer qualify for Survivor and lose all benefits of the class. Putting this aside, though, I view these interpretations individually. I'll argue for a slightly-outside-text interpretation sometimes, sure, but sometimes I'll argue diehard for a textual interpretaion people don't like. So I guess what you're saying is true, but the problem is that the rules are at some points so d*mn ambiguous and self-contradictory that you HAVE to interperet them sometimes.
Caelic 05-29-06, 12:03 PM	The problem, tsuyo, is that people don't acknowledge that--they just whip out RAW whenever they want to say "My interpretation is better than yours." Usually followed by the oh-so-dismissive, "Well, if you want to houserule it, of course you can do that." (P.S. Still trying to get back onto the boards, still unable to do so. I may have to create a new board ID.)
Wolfman1987 05-29-06, 12:10 PM	This seems to be a noob quetion, but what is the page 16 rule?
ronyon 05-29-06, 12:11 PM	RAW is a satandard to be sought,an ideal, not a reality. When I ask a question here, I want to see the examples of RAW backing up the reponses. I also want to see the other side of the question being examined in the RAW. I decide for myself what I will bring to my gaming table. If a poster simply ignores the RAW that does not support his position, I simply ignore his post. A great optimiser I know of cites a ruling(Sage or Customer that allows an object to be conjured onto a character, without a save. I think the RAW precludes this, and guess what? I WANT the RAW to preclude this. If all I want is power, I would play pretend. Strong rules are what make this a game instead of just self gratification. I will use the rules holes I find if I must, but I prefer to get them plugged. No limitless power for me or anyone else, thank you. For limitless power play a 1st person shooter on GOD mode,vs. the computer.
Timlagor 05-29-06, 12:58 PM	I consider the abbreviation useful. It isn't an argument though: I generally use it for highlighting ambiguities in the rules -distinguishing what RAW actually says from what people commonly play or think it should say. If something is disputed then you post the relevant text and people can make up their own minds. Anyone saying "RAW doesn't disallow it" is going to get short shrift from a good DM. I see no reason why anyone should play by the RAW when they can improve on them. I don't know what "Page 16" refers to either. Tangent: I thought the RAW did clearly state that Rainbow servants get full casting. There are PrCs in the book where the text matches incomplete casting in the table and others where it doesn't. The errata document is clear and I haven't seen any authoritative source to contradict it. What individual DMs decide to do about it is up to them.
helicopter 05-29-06, 12:59 PM	The problem, tsuyo, is that people don't acknowledge that--they just whip out RAW whenever they want to say "My interpretation is better than yours." Usually followed by the oh-so-dismissive, "Well, if you want to houserule it, of course you can do that." (P.S. Still trying to get back onto the boards, still unable to do so. I may have to create a new board ID.)You are exaggerating. I've seen many people present conscientious posts that detail the thresholds and boundaries of the RAW in explanation of their point. Then follow that up with suggested balance or tweak solutions to the RAW dilemma. Fundamentally, there's no problem with people making the quote that you stated above. They are pointing out potentially problematic RAW issues. Since pure-RAW D&D games are few and far between, there is no large-scale problem of people grabbing these RAW abuses and ruining D&D games worldwide.
catharz 05-29-06, 01:20 PM	Sometimes text is unambiguous, and then it is useful to quote it with the phrase "Here is the raw:". Sometimes this can stop arguments, sometimes this can simply continue them ('That doesn't make sense,' 'That isn't the intent,' etc). It still isn't subjective. None the less, "RAW" is just a starting point. If you're a slave to D&D as written, then it's what you follow. Everyone I've ever played with uses some sort of "RAI," even when the RAW is completely clear. Then there are the times that the RAW isn't clear, and quoting it doesn't provide a clear message. In that case, it must be nothing more than a starting point for RAI, and there will always be arguments. Sometimes a 'C.O. Consensus' is created (Southern Magician, for example), but that doesn't make the consensus the "right" interpretation. Certainly Caelic and I have had a number of arguments about what the RAW really means (i.e, RAI) which have never ended in agreement. One could attribute this to my (or Caelic's) unwillingness to give up even in the face of obvious logical defeat (Indeed, some have said as much). I'd attribute it, rather, to the postulate that we are both opinionated individuals, at least relative to how D&D should work and how RAW should be interpreted. I don't think the caster level issue (for example) will ever be cleared up. I really doubt that it even occured to anyone who wasn't wired into the C.O. mentality. So as for RAW being useless? No, I don't think it is. You can't play a game without rules. Sometimes it's less than clear, and under those circumstances saying that it supports one interpretation is useless. But often with newbie questions like "Why can't I play a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1/Loremaster 10 and advance MT casting with Loremaster?" invoking the RAW is very useful.
PhoenixInferno 05-29-06, 01:20 PM	Fundamentally, there's no problem with people making the quote that you stated above. They are pointing out potentially problematic RAW issues. Since pure-RAW D&D games are few and far between, there is no large-scale problem of people grabbing these RAW abuses and ruining D&D games worldwide.We can only pray you're right.
Caelic 05-29-06, 01:24 PM	I don't know what "Page 16" refers to either. "Page 16" refers to the rule--reprinted multiple times, but originaly on Page 16 of Complete Warrior--that stipulates that if you lose the prerequisites for a Prestige Class, you lose the class abilities. Tangent: I thought the RAW did clearly state that Rainbow servants get full casting. There are PrCs in the book where the text matches incomplete casting in the table and others where it doesn't. The errata document is clear and I haven't seen any authoritative source to contradict it. Actually, there have been numerous responses contradicting this; there is, in fact, a page (unfortunately, it's stuck in an odd spot and I can't locate it right now) that covers questions like these and affirms that the text of the Rainbow Servant is simply a matter of forgetting to add in "except at levels X, Y, and Z." If you look, you'll notice that all of the limited-casting classes that don't follow a regular pattern (every other level, for instance) share this problem. Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, strictly by the RAW, the most recent version of a class takes precedence. The most recent versions of Rainbow Servant do not have this ambiguity; the text and table explicitly agree that it's a limited-casting class. When this was pointed out, though, the response from at least some of the "full casting class" advocates was, "Foreign language editions don't count." Now: they didn't get this from WotC; the "priority rules" which were used to justify considering this a full casting class in the first place do NOT make distinctions based on language of the edition. They simply unilaterally declared that foreign language editions weren't RAW, because they didn't want them to be RAW. Now: there are certainly problems with using foreign language editions as a basis for RAW--most notably the fact that not one poster in a hundred will ever see those editions. However, it seems like a significant double standard to say "By RAW it's a full caster class, because text trumps table," and then turn around and say, "Well, obviously, when they wrote the RAW, they didn't intend for foreign language editions to count."
Book 05-29-06, 01:35 PM	"Page 16" refers to the rule--reprinted multiple times, but originaly on Page 16 of Complete Warrior--that stipulates that if you lose the prerequisites for a Prestige Class, you lose the class abilities. The Pg. 16 Rule, if closely scrutinized and interpreted in an alternative valid way, also does not provide rules for re-acquirement of lost class abilities. Specifically, read the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Many people interpret that sentence as a "toggle" statement. Meaning you re-gain lost class abilities once you recapture the requirements for the PrC. Many people also interpret that statement to mean that the class abilities are lost, but without a recapture clause, you don't gain them back. Both are valid from a sentence structure standpoint. Making the Page 16 Rule a joke.
HotSake 05-29-06, 01:39 PM	Of course, they then turn around and say, "By RAW, Battle Jump lets me multiattack. I take a full attack, cast a Quickened Dimension Door, and drop down on my opponent from five feet up. That means I get another full attack." Am I way off base here? Has anyone else noticed how utterly subjective "RAW" is? I didn't think anyone even noticed this when I posted it. I went back and edited in the caveat that I wasn't sure it would work and you'd have to check with God your DM. It was just the first thing that occured to me, and I posted it to put the idea out there. BTW, what I actually suggested was teleporting 5' above the enemy, taking your Shadow Pounce full attack, then dropping and taking the Battle Jump full attack at 2x damage. I'm positive it shouldn't work that way, but RAW is subjective, like you said. If someone wants to play it, and their DM wants to allow it, then good for them. Unless an idea is flatly contradicted by unambiguous rules (and even then), someone can still make use of it because their group interprets those rules differently. This means that even tricks that rely on an ambiguous interpretation of the rules should be posted, because they might help someone, somewhere. We just shouldn't be yelling and screaming that they will work for everyone. For instance, I once had to convince a DM that moving and taking a move action were two different things. Safe to say his interpretation of the rules differed from that used by 99% of the people on this board.
Sci 05-29-06, 01:41 PM	It may be just me, but all this should come down to what the DM says. I know quoting rule 0 is cheesy, but frankly, players shouldn't spend their time even ARGUING about this. It should be "Hey, can I run it this way?" to the DM, and he replies "Nah, I don't think that would be fair" and then you try something else, instead of whining, moaning, and complaining like a two year old that couldn't get his candy in the store. There are about five billion, three hundred and seven different possible cominations to play up, and if you can't find more than one you like to break, there's a lot more wrong with you than can be fit into a single paragraph.
Kresalak 05-29-06, 01:42 PM	It is a poorly thought out rule, with such things as it's ability to cause many classes to disqualify themselves from their class based on their class features. However, without it, things are just a bit to abusable, especially when you throw spells into the equation. The rule would work out a lot better if it said that a PrC cannot disqualify you from it's own class features.
Caelic 05-29-06, 01:44 PM	To be honest, HotSake, I didn't even realize that you'd posted that--I was just citing that as an example. The poster who argued for multi-jumping while ignoring the requirements no longer posts on these boards, AFAIK.
Caelic 05-29-06, 01:48 PM	The Pg. 16 Rule, if closely scrutinized and interpreted in an alternative valid way, also does not provide rules for re-acquirement of lost class abilities. Specifically, read the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Many people interpret that sentence as a "toggle" statement. Meaning you re-gain lost class abilities once you recapture the requirements for the PrC. Many people also interpret that statement to mean that the class abilities are lost, but without a recapture clause, you don't gain them back. Both are valid from a sentence structure standpoint. Making the Page 16 Rule a joke. That's precisely the kind of thing I'm taking about. "There are problems with the rule; therefore, the rule isn't RAW/is a joke/shouldn't be used." There are problems with most rules; the wisest response is to look at them on a case by case basis and make reasonable rulings. What is not reasonable is to say, "I found a problem, therefore the rule doesn't count, therefore I can qualify for Hulking Hurler by Polymorphing my halfling into an Ogre for a round."
Arem_K 05-29-06, 04:01 PM	"Page 16" refers to the rule--reprinted multiple times, but originaly on Page 16 of Complete Warrior--that stipulates that if you lose the prerequisites for a Prestige Class, you lose the class abilities. How's that work with the Ur Priest for example?
rilem 05-29-06, 04:18 PM	That's an example of one of the cases where the rule doesn't work, where taking the class would seem to disqualify you from taking it. There are a few cases like this (the survivor/commoner case, already cited, is another) but the problem is that some people say that since the rule fails in a few cases, it is invalidated for all cases. A much better approach is for a DM to look at the case that's causing the problem, as Caelic noted, and make a reasonable ruling. I suspect about zero DMs would actually try to apply the Page 16 rule to Ur-Priest -- they'd sooner just ban the PrC altogether.
Caelic 05-29-06, 04:28 PM	Ur-Priest and Dragon Disciple, though frequently cited, really don't cause problems, as both of them stipulate that you cannot already have something upon taking the class--Ur-Priest cannot already have divine magic, Dragon Disciple cannot already have the half-dragon template. The only way these classes are self-contradictory is if you go out of your way to interpret them that way.
DavidWL 05-30-06, 03:28 AM	Am I way off base here? Has anyone else noticed how utterly subjective "RAW" is? You're basically right. (And I myself fall victim to this). That said, I think the hardcore optimizers care. Besides RAW and RAI, there's also RAR (Rules as Reasonable -- including "natural" changes or extentions to the rules) and RA (Rules Amoral -- ignoring "flavor" requirements). They each have, I think, their own merits. I suspect there are a number of people who build things based on each of the above approaches.
Subedei 05-30-06, 04:07 AM	The Arcane Thesis thread has brought something to my attention. We really do need to use a version of the rules that is actually admissible in your average game. I don't think it should be terribly difficult to guess what that would be in most cases. If you present an argument for a rule to be interpreted in a way that would make you vastly more powerful than you should be then your DM is probably going to do two things: 1) Say "That rule/feat/class doesn't exist or at least PCs can't use it" Or 2) "I don't care what the most logical conclusion based on the text is, I'm going to interpret it in a way that doesn't break my game because otherwise I'd have to ban the rule/feat/class" Well, I can say one thing with the utmost certainty; if I ever end up in a game where rules are taken literally and upheld religiously I'll design a character capable of destroying the world and immediately do so upon being given the ability to act. This will be repeated until the DM either regains his sanity or kicks me out of the group. Alternately I could just kill off every player that isn't exploiting the rules and attempt to kill the ones that are until only I'm left.
colm_l 05-30-06, 04:54 AM	We really do need to use a version of the rules that is actually admissible in your average game. I don't think it should be terribly difficult to guess what that would be in most cases. Elderich & I tried to get a fixed set of rulings set up on this board a few years ago (basically a thread of standardised rules readings on various topics expanded as they came up.) Somewhere along the way it got side tracked on Divine Metamagic & died (not too long after it started actually). Might be a useful thread for someone to restart
Timlagor 05-30-06, 08:02 AM	Elderich & I tried to get a fixed set of rulings set up on this board a few years ago (basically a thread of standardised rules readings on various topics expanded as they came up.) Somewhere along the way it got side tracked on Divine Metamagic & died (not too long after it started actually). Might be a useful thread for someone to restart You'd need someone to maintain a list in the first few posts. You'd also need a clear stipulation that no one is allowed to argue any ruling. Somthing like: You MAY - post a rule you believe should be included with a bried explanation if appropriate - rebutt a previously posted rule with a brief explantion of why BUT you MAY NOT - dispute a rebuttal in the thread (start a new one). It would be worth having but I suspect it would still get a very low signal/noise.
Senevri 05-30-06, 10:06 AM	Wiki?
Docrailgun 05-30-06, 05:57 PM	There's a big problem with having "standard readings of rules"... such a faq/clarification list gets big fast. The main D&D rules faq is already huge, and having another document like that is difficult for everyone to keep up with. In the end, though, all these builds are thought-exercises, as a DM will either toss the build or allow it. So, RAW or RAI as adjudicated here (even if adjudicated by someone in the design team) is still subject to DM whim. While I like reading some of the clever things people come up with here, asking WotC or whoever to determine what a rule means in order to use and abuse said rule is a lot of effort for (IMHO) nothing.
EldonG 05-30-06, 08:47 PM	Optimization...in theoretical cases...is fine. No matter what. OTOH, when it comes down to the game, as a DM, if it unbalances things, change it, throw it out...do whatever needs to be done. Even the best DM can't prepare for every possibility - there are far too many, and more with every book. RAW is a guideline...often interpreted in favor of the optimizer...but not in a good game. I'm not claiming that an optimized character is bad...I've seen too many far below optinmal characters, and that can be bad...but I think the healthiest games allow for players to play characters that are not optimised, and still have their time in the spotlight. I don't think a DM should have to bend over backwards to please everyone, but that *is* their main job...to give the players an enjoyable experience...and a fair challenge. Even this varies group-to-group - I've actually prepared games where I wouldn't allow a simply optimized COD in - so the whole 'my character is perfectly legal, by RAW!' issue is pointless. It works fine in theory...but in any game, a DM has to figure out what will work for his group. Maybe I'm rambling, but my point is a simple one: RAW will have loopholes and gray areas. Period. Optimimizers exploit those. Fine...if there's any question, exploit away. DM's must decide whether this interpretation, or that, will work in thier game, and just be consistent. I do agree with the OP, with one caveat: There *will be* conflicts and gray areas in RAW. RAI is reality. 'Not in my game' is the ultimate answer for the difference.
The_Monkey_King 05-30-06, 09:55 PM	Caelic I think you might be a bit prone to Hyperbole given our interactions of the last couple days. I dont see the problem you are descibing with RAW at all. I find the rules to be very clear in most instances, and when they aren't I think the intent is usually crystal. Arcane Thesis is a perfect example. I mock anyone who thinks that the intent of the spell was to allow negative level metamagic. Its not even worth debating. Does the RAW specifically prohibit it? No, but it doesn't need to. There is already a perfectly fine general rule that prevents things like that. None of the rules are entities in and unto themselves. They all exist in an overall structure.
Caelic 05-30-06, 10:32 PM	I? Prone to hyperbole? Sir, I have never in my life even ONCE engaged in hyperbole! Why, the universe itself would split asunder sooner! Err...yeah. At any rate: the problem isn't with RAW. The problem is with the tendency of people here to trot out "It's RAW" when they mean "It's my interpretation of RAW."
creepy drifter 05-30-06, 10:38 PM	At any rate: the problem isn't with RAW. The problem is with the tendency of people here to trot out "It's RAW" when they mean "It's my interpretation of RAW." Which in and of itself is not inherently a problem. Your issue seems more to be the infrequent person who tries to disingenuously deceive, cajole, or intimidate people into accepting a dubious interpretation of RAW as solid RAW. Which quite frankly, doesn't happen that often at C.O. But when it does, it obviously ticks people off to no end. Ultimately though, we don't have an epidemic scale of these type of problems. It's just that the C.O. forum itself is an obvious flame to the rare moths who devise such machinations. Hence the feeling of getting flooded.
debatedeus 05-31-06, 01:13 AM	You cannot use Dimension Door to teleport into the air, as it is a conjuration(teleportation) spell, and as the RAW clearly states: A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
Eagle Prince 05-31-06, 04:01 AM	I noticed this too and agree, Caelic. Maybe its the nature of the boards, but by trying to push all grey areas toward more powerful builds, now the whole idea of 'RAW' has cracks big enough to drive a battleship through. IE if there is some grey area of RAW with two possible ways to go, and the first leads to ultimate power and the second leads to something resembling balance. 90% of the time people go with choice one. Which for me has sort of killed the board, because its just not that challenging anymore. I actually find it more enjoyable to try fixing some broken rule or build using RAW than optimizing a character, as its not much of a challenge anymore....
smrtgmp 05-31-06, 05:52 AM	You cannot use Dimension Door to teleport into the air, as it is a conjuration(teleportation) spell, and as the RAW clearly states:Yet dimension door neither transports a being to your location nor does it create an object.
Satori 05-31-06, 10:21 AM	I hear ya, and for some reason I have a feeling most of the "RAW arguing" occurs to justify the various "Theory Builds" that many brilliant people come up with here. Why do I call them "Theory Builds"? Because a halfling that can throw 27 coins for 2d6+17 damage each round on a standard attack is NOT a playable character by any stretch. Neither is a Kobold that can rule the world by level 5... Nor is a Bugbear that can destroy a planet with a single charge attack. These characters are THEORY builds...built by exceptionally talented individuals that are able to manipulate the rules and create an effect that, while correct according to RAW, is hardly acceptable on an actual playing table. When used in this way, RAW operates as an acceptable yardstick to create a standard for Theory Building...since Theory Builds based on Houserules would devolve rather quickly. Anyone who actually PLAYS around a table (or online) with a living DM and a team of real people understand that RAW is very rarely as hardcoded and indestructable as claimed by some posters. In fact, I've never met a DM that didn't Rule 0 at least one RAW. I'm currently playing in a game where I'm acting as the Rules Lawyer to essentially update a bunch of 2nd Edition players into 3.5. The DM frequently calls on me to cite "RAW"...and if he doesn't like the way it works, then he houserules it. After only one session, Attacks of Opportunity were deemed unnecessarily complicated and game slowing, and Rebuking (in favor of Turning) was considered inappropriate. A game without Rebuking Necromancers or Spiked Chain Crowd Controllers??? SAY IT ISN'T SO!?!?! NOOOOO!!!!!111eleven!! Yet...it works for the group and the game continues to be fun. I had a point in there somewhere...honest...
Elderich 06-07-06, 06:41 PM	I see it differently. The rules of are game are supposed to communicate an idea. Sometimes these ideas are rather complicated and intricate. Conversational English is specifically chosen as the language these rules are written in. Conversational English is not great at precise communication. While I reconize that people may have agendas that require forcing the RAW to mean something It may, or may not, say; I must assume, as I cannot read motivations over the internet, that the poster is in good faith seeking to decode the text correctly. Let me lay out 2 cases; 1) A section of text can only be decoded into one meaning. In this case discussion may occur until it becomes clear to those who seek accurate understanding the exact meaning of this rule. While I am in general doubtful about mankind, I have found this is rather good place to get to this point. It is not quick, or easy, but I find we get there. (PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS MM STACKING HERE) For example look at the MM stacking holy war that was waged for perhaps a year. Now we see that very early we had a good idea of how the mechanic should work, and eventualy got confirmation in a FAQ. Allow me to continue to point 2 2) A section of text can only be decoded into more than one meaning. In this case the rule given is meaningless. If a rule can mean more than one thing, we should require clarification. Even in this case, I have seen this community come to a very reasonable clarification of poorly written/edited rules. Granted it many not have been easy, or quick, but it happens often enough. As colm_l mentioned we tried to create a listing to capture the conclusion of many of the community in a series of threads. As Timlagor noted the thread had rather sever restrictions, and many posters found the effort objectionable. I personally have no use at all for RAI. I do not mean to offend. As I said I do appreciate the conclusions on suggested interpretations this passionate community have often created. I just do not want to excuse the textual weakness, which needs to be laid at Wizards feet, and corrections/clarifications demanded. I do see what the OP suggeests. I just do not let it effect the discussion.
Caelic 06-07-06, 06:52 PM	I'm afraid I'm more cynical than that. A whole series of conventions have sprung up here precisely to allow people to avoid reaching the point you posit. 1. "CustServ doesn't count. I'm right until they issue errata." This is, perhaps, the most cynical gambit out there, as the people who initiated it know very well that: a. Asking for errata to be issued is not a recourse board posters have, and b. On many of these issues, no errata will be issued because the designers don't recognize the "alternate" interpretation as valid in the first place. I can say "Humans can have a hundred and twelve arms. Nothing in the book says they can't. It's RAW until errata is issued." I can then fold my arms and look smug, knowing that WotC is never going to waste time writing an errata that says, "Humans have two arms." 2. "Until I see the official ruling, I don't believe it exists." I wonder if people really pause to think of just how insulting this one is. A topic comes up; multiple people mention that it's come up and been resolved before; the original poster refuses to believe that unless someone goes down into the depths of the board and dredges up the original conversation from months or years before. By doing this, the OP is, in essence, saying, "Your word isn't good enough, I think you're a liar."
The_Monkey_King 06-07-06, 07:59 PM	Caelic thats really hardly fair is it? So if I say "This has been settled before" I win? Perfect example: Extra Spell. It hasn't ever been settled, i doubt it ever will be. I have a hunch that the rules people are good with either interpretation and feel that leaving it open to people to be either is fine. And yet, the last discussion I had about this, the person disagreeing with me said exactly that, it had been settled long ago and that the person sugegsting the use of the feat was just plain wrong. Asking someone who posts a bald fact to support their argument isn't bad form any more than asking the person who says they can perform cold fusion to prove it. Extreme example. Whatever, I'm sure you understand the point though. If you post an opinion, fine, but your facts are only as good as your support, and thats how it should be.
Docrailgun 06-08-06, 08:34 AM	I think the rules people simply don't care (and shouldn't care) what the interpetation of what is (to them) a very clear rule might be to people who "abuse the rules". I'm sure they feel that DMs are perfectly capable of making decisions and rulings for their games. There's no need to spend their time posting errata or FAQs about how many arms humans have (as Caelic pointed out), simply to stop people from making hundred-armed humans with Ultimate Supreme Monkey Grip Ultra-Epic-Multiattack. I think this thread is probably dead at this point, and probably pointless in any case. People will reparse rules however they want to, and nothing short of closing the CO boards will stop that. Caelic thats really hardly fair is it? So if I say "This has been settled before" I win? Perfect example: Extra Spell. It hasn't ever been settled, i doubt it ever will be. I have a hunch that the rules people are good with either interpretation and feel that leaving it open to people to be either is fine. And yet, the last discussion I had about this, the person disagreeing with me said exactly that, it had been settled long ago and that the person sugegsting the use of the feat was just plain wrong.
Caelic 06-08-06, 09:28 AM	Or, Monkey, it's possible--hard to believe, I know, but possible--that maybe a certain degree of trust could exist on the boards. That when someone (or multiple someones) affirm that a ruling was made on the subject, it could be taken on faith, rather than playing the "I don't believe you until you spend a couple of hours digging through old posts to prove it" game. I don't do that anymore...because, y'see, it's not my problem. I 'm not the one questioning the ruling; why should I be the one to spend my time hunting for it? It seems to me that it falls to the person who wants to use a given interpretation to do the homework--not the people who point out to him that there are problems with his interpretation.
EldonG 06-08-06, 09:32 AM	Gawd, I so wish Wizards would put the search function back in. Google must be tough for some folks.
HotSake 06-08-06, 11:12 AM	Just to play devil's advocate here: If someone asks if a a rule works a certain way, and you say it's already been proven that it doesn't, why shouldn't you be the one required to post a link? You're making a claim; it's perfectly acceptable to ask you to support that claim with proof. You're just a name on a screen to me, so why should I trust you implicitly? It may be insulting to have your word questioned, but is it not also arrogant to assume your name carries any weight with someone who may not have read anything you've written before?
Squirrelloid 06-08-06, 11:42 AM	Page 16 rules: The weird thing about the "page 16" rules is that they appear in scattered sources and not even the most recent ones (at least not as of last time i bought a supplement with PrCs). Its a stretch to say p16 applies to all PrCs when it appears in a splat book - only the core books are required to play the game and only the core books can thus have rules which effect all other books. The logical interpretation is that the "page 16" rules apply to PrCs in those books which include it. If it was intended to be an errata, they should have listed it as a PHB or DMG errata, not stuck it in a splat book. The fact that it also contradicts the very language they use to describe what prerequisites are in the PrC write-ups is in and of itself amusing. But i am still willing to grant p16's supremacy in splatbooks containing that rule. Custserv: Until they get their stuff together and stop making contradictory rulings, its hard to accept custserv opinions on anything. There is also no reason to suspect their opinions are any more valid than the posters on this board, and at least some posters have done more thinking about the rules than they have. I am very leary of trusting anything custserv says unless it agrees with a highly plausible interpretation of RAW. Foreign Language Versions: There are a host of linguistic problems with FLVs, and we're putting our faith in translators to not screw something up. I also know of at least one instance in another game (WH40k) which has the same 'most recent source counts' policy where a rule has flipflopped with successive FLVs if you assume they count as 'most recent source' (English said something slightly ambiguous, German 'corrected it' towards the more questionable end, Japanese corrected it the other way, in that order). Talk about rules nightmare.
Neeek 06-08-06, 11:55 AM	Foreign Language Versions: There are a host of linguistic problems with FLVs, and we're putting our faith in translators to not screw something up. I also know of at least one instance in another game (WH40k) which has the same 'most recent source counts' policy where a rule has flipflopped with successive FLVs if you assume they count as 'most recent source' (English said something slightly ambiguous, German 'corrected it' towards the more questionable end, Japanese corrected it the other way, in that order). Talk about rules nightmare. M:tG has a much simpler, easy-to-understand policy: The English version is correct. Period.
Caelic 06-08-06, 11:58 AM	Just to play devil's advocate here: If someone asks if a a rule works a certain way, and you say it's already been proven that it doesn't, why shouldn't you be the one required to post a link? You're making a claim; it's perfectly acceptable to ask you to support that claim with proof. Because I'm not the one with a stake in the issue. YOU want to know the rule in question; I don't. YOU aren't sure how it works; I am. Now, if I happen to have the ruling handy, I will certainly post it, but I don't see why I should go far out of my way to answer your question if you're not prepared to do so yourself. You're just a name on a screen to me, so why should I trust you implicitly? Why should you assume that I would lie about something as trivial as a game? It may be insulting to have your word questioned, but is it not also arrogant to assume your name carries any weight with someone who may not have read anything you've written before? Well, no, because I would give others the same courtesy. I might ask if they know where the ruling can be found, but I'm not going to say "I don't believe there is such a ruling." Maybe I'm unreasonably optimistic, but I believe in trusting people until they demonstrate that they're not trustworthy.
Caelic 06-08-06, 12:13 PM	Page 16 rules: The weird thing about the "page 16" rules is that they appear in scattered sources and not even the most recent ones (at least not as of last time i bought a supplement with PrCs). Its a stretch to say p16 applies to all PrCs when it appears in a splat book - only the core books are required to play the game and only the core books can thus have rules which effect all other books. Rationalization and double standards. People on these boards apply rules from splatbooks to all other books constantly. There's nary a peep of protest...as long as those rules make characters more powerful. As soon as a rule appears which in any way inconveniences the quest for more power, though, the rationalizations begin. "Only the core books can have rules which affect all other books" is an opinion, not a rule. It's also fallacious, and provably so. The logical interpretation is that the "page 16" rules apply to PrCs in those books which include it. No, the logical conclusion is that a rule is a rule, and that a rule that's been reprinted numerous times and never contradicted remains in effect, and that if they only intended it to apply to a limited number of classes they would have said so. This is also the correct conclusion in this case; it has been upheld many, MANY times by CustServ and R&D. Of course, the standard response to that is "Nope, they don't count. I'm right and they're wrong." Some people don't like the fact that they can't qualify for Beholder Mage by Polymorphing into a Beholder for a single round; therefore, the rules which say you can't must be invalid. QED. If it was intended to be an errata, they should have listed it as a PHB or DMG errata, not stuck it in a splat book. It wasn't intended to be an errata, as it wasn't a correction. This is more strawman argument, and pretty cynical, IMO. But i am still willing to grant p16's supremacy in splatbooks containing that rule. What you're "willing to grant" is irrelevant. Until they get their stuff together and stop making contradictory rulings, its hard to accept custserv opinions on anything. There is also no reason to suspect their opinions are any more valid than the posters on this board, and at least some posters have done more thinking about the rules than they have. I am very leary of trusting anything custserv says unless it agrees with a highly plausible interpretation of RAW. Oddly enough, "highly plausible interpretation of RAW," in the estimation of the CustServ-bashers, generally seems synonymous with "agrees with MY interpretation." As for "reason to suspect their opinions are any more valid," WotC says they are. Foreign Language Versions: There are a host of linguistic problems with FLVs, and we're putting our faith in translators to not screw something up. The same people who cry, "Oh, but they could have made a mistake!" when FLVs are cited in the matter of Rainbow Servant are the ones who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility (the certainty, actually, but they'll never admit that) that Rainbow Servant's "full spellcasting" was a mistake. It's the double standard again. They're all for RAW until RAW disagrees with THEIR opinion; then, RAW ceases to matter.
Hesparex 06-08-06, 12:23 PM	As I have stated before with the "rules" being what they are as a player I consult the DM on what the character is and what the character intends to do. I actually build a 20 level progression and list feat selections and a few paragraphs about intended use of "tricks" granted by the combinations of feats, spells, class powers. This prevents any gaming table disasters at a later date (usually). As a DM I encourage my players to do the same to clear up any grey areas. I freely warn players regarding prCs that have a membership or training requirement are more difficult to get in (need to locate a trainer and convince them the character is the right material for the group or trainer). I put out my own house rulings in advance for new players (I am stingy on moving through friendly squares, 5ft moves, and have a preset limitation for the amount of free actions a person can take depending on dexterity and intelligence based on the type of free action and am more flexible of interchanging standard and move equivilent actions for skills, potion use etc). RAW is silly as some rules were written when swift and immediate actions didnt exist (just an example) other areas written before the plethora of extra classes were provided the list goes on.
Elderich 06-08-06, 06:03 PM	Hesparex; That should be in the PHB and the DMG. I have learned to live by that exact idea, and it saves no end of trouble. A whole series of conventions have sprung up here precisely to allow people to avoid reaching the point you posit.Could you point me to them? See, Caelic can be helpful and post links or give you enough information to go on. Spoon feeding is not likely, but we are all growed up here, and do not need that kind of help. Some people don't like the fact that they can't qualify for Beholder Mage by Polymorphing into a Beholder for a single round; therefore, the rules, which say you can't, must be invalid. QED.Perhaps I misunderstand you Caelic. Are you saying one would not qualify in this case, or that you may for a moment, but lose all the benefits of the PrC when you no longer qualify? The_Monkey_King and HotSake; I think you misunderstand. If you are informed that a question has been settled, then you have been given more information. It is suggested you do your due diligence and go find the item in question. Caelic once told me that "touch" ranged spells are not subjects for persistent. I asked him where was that so I may look it up, and Was told the 3.0 FAQ. Behold it was there, and I posted the page and link. I doubt I would have got the answer if I told him I was right until he proved his point. Caelic cares enough to assist the willing, but not spoon-feed the offensive. This does cut both ways. Prior discussions may turn on your learned contributions. But not likely unless you have a good understand of the discussion heretofore. Caelic, I think it would save "much weeping and gnashing of teeth" if the community simply compiled it's own FAQ to address these oft repeated and long unaddressed issues. The answers could even include the “reasonable men may differ” answers.
Squirrelloid 06-08-06, 06:27 PM	Rationalization and double standards. People on these boards apply rules from splatbooks to all other books constantly. There's nary a peep of protest...as long as those rules make characters more powerful. As soon as a rule appears which in any way inconveniences the quest for more power, though, the rationalizations begin. "Only the core books can have rules which affect all other books" is an opinion, not a rule. It's also fallacious, and provably so. No, the logical conclusion is that a rule is a rule, and that a rule that's been reprinted numerous times and never contradicted remains in effect, and that if they only intended it to apply to a limited number of classes they would have said so. This is also the correct conclusion in this case; it has been upheld many, MANY times by CustServ and R&D. Of course, the standard response to that is "Nope, they don't count. I'm right and they're wrong." Some people don't like the fact that they can't qualify for Beholder Mage by Polymorphing into a Beholder for a single round; therefore, the rules which say you can't must be invalid. QED. Then why did they not print the 'page 16 rules' in CV? Did they stop being true? What if someone only bought the core books - does the rule not apply because they don't own the right splatbook? Reprinted many times? It appears twice to my knowledge in the 10+ splatbooks i own (CW, CA) and nowhere else. It wasn't intended to be an errata, as it wasn't a correction. This is more strawman argument, and pretty cynical, IMO. But it is an errata - if its intended to update a game mechanic and correct an oversight it is by definition an errata. Also the expectation that people will buy material beyond what is *required to play the game* to be able to use all the material they have bought correctly (DMG PrCs) is a ridiculous standard. Oddly enough, "highly plausible interpretation of RAW," in the estimation of the CustServ-bashers, generally seems synonymous with "agrees with MY interpretation." As for "reason to suspect their opinions are any more valid," WotC says they are. And when they return contradicting opinions? And when they directly contradict the RAW? (Not that they are alone in this - Skip has certainly done it too). They have a terrible reputation because they do both. You're dodging my reasons for ignoring custserve to attack the easy target, but the fact of the matter is they have caused themselves to be marginalized on these boards - they want respect they need to return answers which agree with previous answers they have provided and fall within the scope of the text. The same people who cry, "Oh, but they could have made a mistake!" when FLVs are cited in the matter of Rainbow Servant are the ones who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility (the certainty, actually, but they'll never admit that) that Rainbow Servant's "full spellcasting" was a mistake. It's the double standard again. They're all for RAW until RAW disagrees with THEIR opinion; then, RAW ceases to matter. You know something, i could care less about Rainbow Servant. You're looking at one particular point where it was easy to find where the FLV contradicted the english. Its even one where the translator *posted on these boards* that he had changed it independently of any official, much less design team, directive to do so. You'd think they could at least errata it if they thought the english version is wrong. But this is not even the heart of the issue with FLVs, and certainly i'd be houseruling Rainbow Servant to the table progression in my games anyway. You're an intelligent rational person Caelic. Surely you can understand the problems inherent in translation can cause drastic differences in the meanings of passages that were the best that could be done, especially in transitions from english to japanese or other languages which aren't closely related. Have you poured over all the FLVs to make sure nothing else has changed? That nothing basic to the game has changed? I'm against FLVs in general solely because i appreciate the difficulties involved in translating a complex document accurately, and don't think the game should be shackled to translator error and inability to express concepts exactly the same between two languages.
Caelic 06-08-06, 06:27 PM	Could you point me to them? Unfortunately, not easily, as they're not centralized in any one place; they're standardized rhetorical devices employed in a number of threads. Perhaps I misunderstand you Caelic. Are you saying one would not qualify in this case, or that you may for a moment, but lose all the benefits of the PrC when you no longer qualify? In accordance with the rules as they currently stand, you could qualify, but would lose the abilities when you ceased to be a Beholder. Now: I would say that, in this particular case, there's some controversy, as the class stipulates "true Beholder," which a Polymorphed wizard really isn't. In the general case, though, I would say the above holds true. Caelic, I think it would save "much weeping and gnashing of teeth" if the community simply compiled it's own FAQ to address these oft repeated and long unaddressed issues. The answers could even include the “reasonable men may differ” answers. I agree, and would love to see a sticky thread where rulings and precedents could be compiled.
Caelic 06-08-06, 06:40 PM	You're an intelligent rational person Caelic. Surely you can understand the problems inherent in translation can cause drastic differences in the meanings of passages that were the best that could be done, especially in transitions from english to japanese or other languages which aren't closely related. Have you poured over all the FLVs to make sure nothing else has changed? That nothing basic to the game has changed? I'm against FLVs in general solely because i appreciate the difficulties involved in translating a complex document accurately, and don't think the game should be shackled to translator error and inability to express concepts exactly the same between two languages. Yes. What surprises me is that you have seemingly utterly missed the point which prompted me to bring up FLVs in the first place. They were brought up specifically in response to the "full caster Rainbow Servant is RAW! Praise the mighty RAW!" argument. Now, pause for a moment to consider that this entire argument is predicated on a source which is not only not core, but which the majority of players will never see: the online ruling that "text trumps table." Despite that, it was being cited as gospel, and people were telling new players "Rainbow Servant is a full caster class by RAW." To me, it's an asinine argument. We know that it wasn't meant to be a full caster class. I don't think anyone has seriously attempted to claim that it was intended to be a full caster class. The entire point...the entire point of bringing in FLVs was to point out the foolishness of saying, "It's RAW! It's RAW! Nothing else matters!" By RAW...by the exact same electronic sources that establish that text trumps table...the most recent source is definitive, period. Language is not mentioned. Thus, FLVs are entirely valid by RAW. Is that foolish? Yes...precisely as foolish as claiming that Rainbow Servant is a full caster class in the first place.
Neeek 06-08-06, 06:54 PM	Then why did they not print the 'page 16 rules' in CV? Did they stop being true? What if someone only bought the core books - does the rule not apply because they don't own the right splatbook? Reprinted many times? It appears twice to my knowledge in the 10+ splatbooks i own (CW, CA) and nowhere else. Which, considering the other things that are placed in splatbooks over and over again (like the swift/immediate action rules), actually means something.
Caelic 06-08-06, 07:01 PM	In all probability, someone at WotC determined that putting the rule in two of the "primary source" prestige class books was sufficient--that anyone who cared much about prestige classes would own one, if not both, of those books. If every applicable rule is reprinted in every applicable book, that's a LOT of space-bloat. I will note that those rules are also referenced in other places. Races of Destiny comes to mind immediately. Of course, it's also possible that the fact that they haven't been reprinted in all of the "Complete" books is simply because WotC is fairly schizophrenic and there isn't great communication between those working on different projects.
Bard-of-all-trades 06-08-06, 07:12 PM	I would have to say that what might actually be a bigger problem is how people interpret others posts here. Caelic and I have had the opportunity to verbally joust over the Rainbow Servant and Sacred Fist. Looking back at the Sacred Fist arguments, we were both logical in our stances and each had plenty of facts to support our cases. The problem was more that it seemed that he was disregarding the logic, and therefore the time and energy that went into my arguments, as being just plain off-base. The other problem I see is that once a stance is made, right or wrong, there is no changing. Now I'm as opinionated as the next guy, but sometimes majority rules, for good or bad and you can't fight it. Caelic, you seem to enjoy fighting it. (Just an observation and not meant to be a personal jab at your character.) I have found myself doing this as well. We aren't alone by any means. I also would like to reiterate that the rules are a guideline for your game. Your game may be way different than my game and the guy's game down the street. There is that flexibility to interpret things that best fit your own individual game so it plays how you want it to be played. Example: I know of a group that allows a Rogue to make Sneak Attacks on every attack made against a flanked opponent. The group that I play in only allows a Rogue to make a Sneak Attack only on the first attack made against a flanked opponent. (Reason: A Rogue would do way more damage than any other class; accept for spellcasters in a round. Also, the person taking the flanked Sneak Attack isn't going to stand still enough to take that many well placed shots.) Both are viable and more than playable and there is nothing wrong with either interpretation. They each work just fine for each game. So I don't see this as any kind of epidemic problem that will throw D&D into an irreversible tailspin that will detrimentally ruin the game forever. It's pretty much boils down to "different strokes for different folks".
Bard-of-all-trades 06-08-06, 07:16 PM	I have a hard time with folks who argue over what the rules were intended to be. Unless the authors of the rule states what their intentions were, we cannot even begin to fathom what their intent was especially when we are trying to discern if text, chart, or example is correct when each one differs from the rest. That's all I'm going to say on this. :)
Caelic 06-08-06, 07:17 PM	Enjoy fighting the majority? Absolutely; I freely admit it. On the other hand, I reject the notion that those who believe that Rainbow Servant is a full casting class are "the majority." Indeed, despite the fact that I have met and interact with thousands of D&D players...on forums, at conventions, in the local gaming group...I have never met a single person outside of these forums who treats the class as such. I would, indeed, argue that the proponents of this theory are a minority (and a fairly small one) even on the board. And, no, the game of "My RAW is better than your RAW!" will have virtually no effect on D&D, and certainly won't send it into a tailspin. This board may well be another matter.
Caelic 06-08-06, 07:20 PM	I have a hard time with folks who argue over what the rules were intended to be. Unless the authors of the rule states what their intentions were, we cannot even begin to fathom what their intent was especially when we are trying to discern if text, chart, or example is correct when each one differs from the rest. That's all I'm going to say on this. :) But the people who wave the RAW standard the hardest are precisely the ones who argue intent the most. They just refuse to acknowledge that they're doing so.
Bard-of-all-trades 06-08-06, 07:34 PM	You also seem to really like to get the last word in as well :P
Caelic 06-08-06, 07:36 PM	Do I?
FiestFan 06-08-06, 08:55 PM	Then why did they not print the 'page 16 rules' in CV? Did they stop being true? What if someone only bought the core books - does the rule not apply because they don't own the right splatbook? This leads to a lovely slippery slope whereby one could argue that a spell or feat is only valid if it's been reprinted in the most recent source. Not in the Spell Compendium? Not a valid D&D spell anymore.....
EldonG 06-08-06, 09:20 PM	Do I? LOL!
Wolfman1987 06-08-06, 09:25 PM	The page 16 rule is also indirectly mentioned in the pHB II under prestige class in changing your race. It says that if your change of race renders a pretige class invalid, then you lose the benefits of that prestige class. Ergo, it is in the most recent source(briefly).
HotSake 06-08-06, 09:39 PM	It would seem so! Unless the authors of the rule states what their intentions were, we cannot even begin to fathom what their intent was especially when we are trying to discern if text, chart, or example is correct when each one differs from the rest. Give us some credit. Of course we can "begin to fathom" it; we just can't know with 100% accuracy. We're all reasonably intelligent beings (ok, mostly) so our powers of deduction must be developed to at least a certain level by life experience if nothing else. If someone points a gun to my head, I can certainly "begin to fathom" that he means me some harm. I don't need to ask him and get a signed affidavit in triplicate stating his intent to shoot me. Similarly, I've been playing D&D long enough that I've developed a sense (as I suspect most of us have) of how classes are designed, how balance is usually maintained, and what characters are meant to be able to do. That's a fine basis for guessing at a designer's intent when it's unclear. I think you misunderstand. If you are informed that a question has been settled, then you have been given more information. It is suggested you do your due diligence and go find the item in question. Caelic once told me that "touch" ranged spells are not subjects for persistent. I asked him where was that so I may look it up, and Was told the 3.0 FAQ. Behold it was there, and I posted the page and link. Considering how unreliable searching is, telling someone to look it up isn't always enough. I can be as diligent as possible and not find it, either because it doesn't exist or because it's just not in the search. When your suggested search terms turn up nothing, nor do a few ideas of my own, what am I to believe? That the answer exists somewhere and I just can't find it, or that you're wrong, intentionally or not? Why should the former be more likely than the latter? You, as a faceless poster, have motive to lie to me by telling me I'm wrong and it's already been settled. Maybe you want to sound authoritative. Maybe you're willing to lie to win an argument. Maybe you just like jerking people around. I'm not saying these motives apply to you, only that they exist and are plausible. So you could be lying, as the anonymous have been known to do, I've done my due diligence and found nothing, but my first assumption should be that you're correct? It's cynical, but I don't think it's wrong to refuse to extend that level of trust to what amounts to a total stranger. Disclaimer: This is not my actual position. I tend to assume that people on message boards are generally trying to be helpful, as there are social mechanisms in place to weed out those who aren't. Especially for the more reliable, well known posters like Caelic, I would accept "it's been settled" even if I couldn't find the result. I'm just trying to construct a valid argument for not extending that level of trust, partly for my own amusement.
incubus 06-08-06, 10:16 PM	That's precisely the kind of thing I'm taking about. "There are problems with the rule; therefore, the rule isn't RAW/is a joke/shouldn't be used." The thing is you are somehow putting an ad absurdum argument up against "I don't really feel it should do that". The page 16 rule has a number of effects which cause serious problems in terms of how people feel things should work (ie - a blackguard will lose his dark familiar if his strength is ever penalised below 13, and who knows what happens if he traded in paladin levels...). Additionally it has at least 3 cases where the rule leaves a character in an indeterminate state. Then there's the final argument that for some reason it only applies to 'martial' characters. For me, that kind of beats out "someone put it in a secondary source rule book, and I feel like builds might be ridiculous without it". Ur-Priest and Dragon Disciple, though frequently cited, really don't cause problems, as both of them stipulate that you cannot already have something upon taking the class--Ur-Priest cannot already have divine magic, Dragon Disciple cannot already have the half-dragon template. Which is no different from the basic rules for PrCs, which is what the CW rule overrides. Prerequisites are just things you have to have before you take a level in the class, and don't apply afterwards. That's kind of what the word means... Every single prerequisite has a "before you take a level in this class, you must have " appended to the beginning of it. By all means, argue your way, but I think you'll not end up where you want to be. I think what you really have to ask yourself Caelic is this: What is it that you actually want? It almost sounds like you want people to simply not argue points? Or perhaps you want people to accept "I don't feel like that rule should be valid" as a valid and discussion ending argument? Or pointing out that there's a meaning to the word "like" that kills someone's build should simply stymie anything further? Since the use of the phrase RAW is almost entirely used in theoretical discussions, what does it matter? The reason, Caelic, that people go with the "this interpretation lets my build work" is that if you go the opposite way, there's no real minimal boundary, and you simply end up totally stifling any sort of creativity. I dare say that there is at least one negative rule interpretation that prevents you from having characters at all.
Caelic 06-08-06, 10:41 PM	The thing is you are somehow putting an ad absurdum argument up against "I don't really feel it should do that". It'd be nice if it was; it isn't. People on this board have argued everything from "The page 16 rules only apply to Complete Warrior" to "The page 16 rules are completely invalid and anyone who uses them isn't playing by the rules as written." No hyperbole; no reductio. And, no, people aren't saying, "I don't think the rules should work that way." If they just stayed with that, I'd have no problem. They're saying the rules don't work that way--and then they offer all manner of invented rationalizations for why the rules don't count. Here's a good example: Which is no different from the basic rules for PrCs, which is what the CW rule overrides. Prerequisites are just things you have to have before you take a level in the class, and don't apply afterwards. That's a fabrication. Nowhere in the rules does it say that. It says you have to have the requirements before you can take a level in the class, yes--people invented the "And then you never need them again" bit out of whole cloth. That's kind of what the word means... Every single prerequisite has a "before you take a level in this class, you must have " appended to the beginning of it. The meaning of "prerequisite" might actually mean something if they, y'know, used that word at all. They don't. Prestige classes have requirements, not "prerequisites." By all means, argue your way, but I think you'll not end up where you want to be. Oh, I think I will. WotC is, after all, on my side on this one. Now: what do I want? Well, let's see. World peace would be nice...maybe a bag of hundred dollar bills...oh, and to lose that stubborn ten pounds, that'd be good, too. Apart from that, I guess what I'd like is this: 1. Not to have to continually rehash the same arguments every six months. As entertaining as it is to hear all of the arguments about why Timestop should be Persistable, why Southern Magician should allow one to qualify for Mystic Theurge, why you should be able to take one level of Mystic Theurge and then advance THAT spellcasting with another prestige class, and why WotC really didn't mean for people to use the page 16 rules...it gets old after about the sixteenth time. It'd just be nice to actually be able to say, "It doesn't work, we hashed this out a year and a half ago," and NOT have someone assume that it's a sinister conspiracy to cheat him out of his glory as the discoverer of the Persistent Timestopped Mystic Theurge Southern Magician (tm.) 2. For people who choose a certain rules interpretation because it makes their character stronger to just be honest about it and stop with all of the "I play strictly by RAW" nonsense. 3. For people to accept that, yes, sometimes Customer Service does know what they're talking about. When they tell us a half dozen times that, yes, honest, the page 16 rules DO apply to all prestige classes, and, yes, they checked with R&D, and, yes, they're really, really, really sure...it'd be nice if people would just accept that and move on. Houserule it if you really want, but again, let's be honest about it: the people houseruling it, by and large, aren't doing so out of their grave concern for the well-being of the Dragon Disciple class and the rules as written. "I polymorph into a Beholder and take the Beholder Mage prestige class, and then change back into a human and keep it!" is a heck of a lot more ridiculous, rules-wise, than any of the minor (and they ARE minor) judgement calls the page 16 rules necessitate.
EldonG 06-08-06, 11:00 PM	Just a thought, but the famed page 16 rules actually start in the PHB with the basic classes, like Barbarian, Druid, and Paladin. If they lose the prerequisites, they lose class abilities. All you people saying if it isn't reprinted in every friggin' book under the sun, there is precedent in CORE BOOK 1.
FeceMan 06-08-06, 11:13 PM	Thank goodness that some people have some common sense on this board. Check the Revised Necromancer's handbook a few pages back to see those without some.
Maat_Mons 06-08-06, 11:18 PM	[Note: since I opened this page earlier today but didn’t actually read it until just now, some of my comments are redundant with HotSake’s post, but I typed this all before I realized that, so I’m posting it anyway.] You know Caelic, expecting people to take your word for a rule is pure arrogance. No one’s saying you’re lying, just that you’re human. As a human, you may be wrong even when you feel very certain. What is insulting is when you assume that anyone requesting a source hasn’t already looked for the rule you describe. You say you think the best of people until they prove otherwise, yet it never occurs to you that someone might be showing you a small bit of common courtesy, that they might have tried and failed to locate this item before they asked you where it is? I can’t remember any posts along the lines of "Until I see the official ruling, I don't believe it exists." I have, however, seen threads where a poster claims the build doesn’t work without providing support and the original poster responds with something along the lines of “Unless you can provide me with a reference, I cannot make any changes to the build.” I suppose this is more of your hyperbole. Certainly, no one would use a rule he hasn’t read for a build. If he can’t find a rule and you refuse to tell him where it is he really has no choice but to ignore it. Moreover, if you are the only person telling him about a rule and his most thorough investigations fail to show any evidence of it, then he should suspect that you may have misremembered it.
Subedei 06-08-06, 11:40 PM	These boards use consensus, not truth.
Arem_K 06-09-06, 12:16 AM	Just a thought, but the famed page 16 rules actually start in the PHB with the basic classes, like Barbarian, Druid, and Paladin. If they lose the prerequisites, they lose class abilities. All you people saying if it isn't reprinted in every friggin' book under the sun, there is precedent in CORE BOOK 1. But the monk does not. And don't barbarians just lose the rage? Ur-Priest and Dragon Disciple, though frequently cited, really don't cause problems, as both of them stipulate that you cannot already have something upon taking the class--Ur-Priest cannot already have divine magic, Dragon Disciple cannot already have the half-dragon template. I know you think you are making a significant distinction here, but I am not seeing it. How is this different from every other requirement?
incubus 06-09-06, 12:22 AM	It'd be nice if it was; it isn't. People on this board have argued everything from "The page 16 rules only apply to Complete Warrior" to "The page 16 rules are completely invalid and anyone who uses them isn't playing by the rules as written." No hyperbole; no reductio. Not quite sure I get that - the p16 rules as they are written end up, in several cases, in situations that are impossible. In many cases, they fail to make sense. Compared with ignoring the p16 rules, where they fail to make sense in some cases. Spot which scenario involves having situations that are actually impossible... That's a fabrication. Nowhere in the rules does it say that. It says you have to have the requirements before you can take a level in the class, yes--people invented the "And then you never need them again" bit out of whole cloth. ?? If, nowhere in a recipe does it state "you do not need to keep the ingredients sitting on the counter once you've finished cooking", do I then need to keep the ingredients out? The meaning of "prerequisite" might actually mean something if they, y'know, used that word at all. They don't. Prestige classes have requirements, not "prerequisites." You're right. Bizarrely, feats (which DO go away if you don't have the prerequisites) use the term prerequisites... 1. Not to have to continually rehash the same arguments every six months. As entertaining as it is to hear all of the arguments about why Timestop should be Persistable, why Southern Magician should allow one to qualify for Mystic Theurge, why you should be able to take one level of Mystic Theurge and then advance THAT spellcasting with another prestige class, and why WotC really didn't mean for people to use the page 16 rules...it gets old after about the sixteenth time. It'd just be nice to actually be able to say, "It doesn't work, we hashed this out a year and a half ago," and NOT have someone assume that it's a sinister conspiracy to cheat him out of his glory as the discoverer of the Persistent Timestopped Mystic Theurge Southern Magician (tm.) Then take the constructive path. Start your own thread-of-threads on "things we've hashed out for the 15th time and don't want to go another round on". Point people at that and say "It doesn't work because of this". And... here's the big bit... once you've done that LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. You don't have to keep arguing the point unless you enjoy doing so. 2. For people who choose a certain rules interpretation because it makes their character stronger to just be honest about it and stop with all of the "I play strictly by RAW" nonsense. 3. For people to accept that, yes, sometimes Customer Service does know what they're talking about. When they tell us a half dozen times that, yes, honest, the page 16 rules DO apply to all prestige classes, and, yes, they checked with R&D, and, yes, they're really, really, really sure...it'd be nice if people would just accept that and move on. Houserule it if you really want, but again, let's be honest about it: the people houseruling it, by and large, aren't doing so out of their grave concern for the well-being of the Dragon Disciple class and the rules as written. Perhaps not in the CO forum, but certainly IRL. "I polymorph into a Beholder and take the Beholder Mage prestige class, and then change back into a human and keep it!" is a heck of a lot more ridiculous, rules-wise, than any of the minor (and they ARE minor) judgement calls the page 16 rules necessitate. How exactly is what you quote above not a minor judgement call, any more than the myriad of nonsensical situations that the p16 rules provide? "Your undead minion abandons you, because you're not strong enough to power attack". "You forget how to cast invisibility, because someone showed you that helping others makes you feel good inside" "You lose 10 levels of casting ability because you cast mage hand and only had one memorised". "You lose your wings, a bunch of stat points, some armor etc etc because someone touch of idiocied you" Just a thought, but the famed page 16 rules actually start in the PHB with the basic classes, like Barbarian, Druid, and Paladin. If they lose the prerequisites, they lose class abilities. All you people saying if it isn't reprinted in every friggin' book under the sun, there is precedent in CORE BOOK 1. Rubbish. Bards retain their powers, barbarians retain all powers but one. Druids and paladins have to specifically state that they lose (most of..) their abilities. Nowhere else is there a blanket "you lose your powers unless you currently qualify for your class". It's there for feats and spellcasting, but not for classes.
EldonG 06-09-06, 12:30 AM	Rubbish. Bards retain their powers, barbarians retain all powers but one. Druids and paladins have to specifically state that they lose (most of..) their abilities. Nowhere else is there a blanket "you lose your powers unless you currently qualify for your class". It's there for feats and spellcasting, but not for classes. It IS NOT rubbish. It is a PRECEDENT. A PRECEDENT does not have to be a BLANKET. Do you understand the word PRECEDENT? As in, this IS precedented? Meaning, there are stated cases of the existence of said occurrence? The discovery of dinosaur bones in an area sets a precedent: Dinosaur bones have been found there. Nowhere in that statement does it guarantee that there will *only* be dinosaur bones found there.
Arem_K 06-09-06, 12:36 AM	It IS NOT rubbish. It is a PRECEDENT. A PRECEDENT does not have to be a BLANKET. Do you understand the word PRECEDENT? As in, this IS precedented? Meaning, there are stated cases of the existence of said occurrence? Ah, I see you can post in THE CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH MAKE YOUR POINT STRONGER. Well played.
FeceMan 06-09-06, 12:38 AM	I know you think you are making a significant distinction here, but I am not seeing it. How is this different from every other requirement? Because, allegedly, taking levels in the class disqualifies one from being able to continue advancement in the PrC. This, of course, is negated by a) anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense, and b) anyone who deals with people who scream about RAW by reading the requirements as RAW. Not quite sure I get that - the p16 rules as they are written end up, in several cases, in situations that are impossible. In many cases, they fail to make sense. Cite scenarios. ?? If, nowhere in a recipe does it state "you do not need to keep the ingredients sitting on the counter once you've finished cooking", do I then need to keep the ingredients out? No one argues the RAW of recipes. Then take the constructive path. Start your own thread-of-threads on "things we've hashed out for the 15th time and don't want to go another round on". Point people at that and say "It doesn't work because of this". And... here's the big bit... once you've done that LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. Done. And STILL people argue about it. How exactly is what you quote above not a minor judgement call, any more than the myriad of nonsensical situations that the p16 rules provide? "Your undead minion abandons you, because you're not strong enough to power attack". "You forget how to cast invisibility, because someone showed you that helping others makes you feel good inside" "You lose 10 levels of casting ability because you cast mage hand and only had one memorised". "You lose your wings, a bunch of stat points, some armor etc etc because someone touch of idiocied you" Rubbish. Bards retain their powers, barbarians retain all powers but one. Druids and paladins have to specifically state that they lose (most of..) their abilities. Nowhere else is there a blanket "you lose your powers unless you currently qualify for your class". It's there for feats and spellcasting, but not for classes. Getting into the beholder mage PrC is incredibly difficult and incredibly retarded, too. It's ingenius, but it's also something that no GM with the qualities of a) (listed above) would allow. Granted, it becomes a rules call when dealing with PrCs like the blackguard. I would not rule that one loses all the abilities with the class when dealing with temporary ability drain/damage. Arguing from a RAW standpoint, all the PrC requires is that one have the feats Power Attack, Cleave, and Improved Sunder. One still has those feats even if one no can no longer make use of them. Alternatively, depending on the situation, I might simply rule that, if one has the feat and one fails to meet the prerequisites due to ability damage/drain (temporary), one would still be able to use the feat. But, of course, that becomes house rule territory.
Maat_Mons 06-09-06, 12:39 AM	[Edit: Oh crap, FeceMan beat me by a minute.] "Your undead minion abandons you, because you're not strong enough to power attack." Losing the prerequisites for a feat prevents you from using it, but you still have the feat. You could still use power attack to qualify for a prestige class even if your strength drops below thirteen. "You forget how to cast invisibility, because someone showed you that helping others makes you feel good inside." That's just a great quote.
LogicNinja 06-09-06, 12:53 AM	It'd just be nice to actually be able to say, "It doesn't work, we hashed this out a year and a half ago," and NOT have someone assume that it's a sinister conspiracy to cheat him out of his glory as the discoverer of the Persistent Timestopped Mystic Theurge Southern Magician (tm.) ...does this mean I shouldn't show you my build? :confused: :( You see, I use Southern Magician to qualify for Mystic Theurge, which increases my sorcerer caster level by 2 for every MT level; then at level 8, I use Polymorph Any Object to polymorph into a Beholder Mage for a round, and use Beholder Mage to advance my Mystic Theurge Casting 2:1, thus advancing sorcerer casting 4:1! And I use my uber-high-level spell slots to cast Persistent Time Stops! :P My build ROCKS! :cool:
Arem_K 06-09-06, 12:55 AM	Because, allegedly, taking levels in the class disqualifies one from being able to continue advancement in the PrC. This, of course, is negated by a) anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense, and b) anyone who deals with people who scream about RAW by reading the requirements as RAW. The basic argument of the Ur Priest is that the page 16 rules break the class, implying that either the person who wrote the class or the person who wrote the rule were not aware of the real rules of the game. I am sure we can come up with examples of places where the person writing one of the official rule books seems ignorant of a certain book. As for the common sense thing, since when has that been important in DnD? The bard class clearly forbids a lawful alignment. Is there any common sense reason why there cannot be a lawful musician? No, of course not. Does that mean the rule is overturned? No, of course not. Common sense and DnD rules do not see eye to eye. When one overwrites game rules, wheter it be based on common sense or another reason, it is called house ruling. This is why RAW exists. There are a lot of builds that make sense thematically, but just do not work by the rules. Want to be a druid who wildshapes into a variety of magical beasts? Think the master of many forms should do it for you? I agree, but the rules do not. It seems like whenever I see the RAW being invoked it is too shut down something that should work, but does not. Sometimes, it goes the other way, and something like Pun Pun is formed. Of course, many people try to use it the other way, because lots of people want to be the guy who made the king of smack or whatever.
EldonG 06-09-06, 07:45 AM	Ah, I see you can post in THE CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH MAKE YOUR POINT STRONGER. Well played. No, actually they showed my irritation at having to explain the meaning of the word that apparently got totally overlooked. I posted that in irritation, and I think the post did a fine job of showing that. It is likely that when things get rehashed over and over again that it will get irritating, you know?
EldonG 06-09-06, 07:52 AM	Simply put, I know of no competent DM that wouldn't penalize you for losing a prerequisite. If you use a magic item to qualify for something, and then lose or remove the item, you can't use it anymore...there are precedents throughout the game, in black and white...and what's more, it's common sense, something often severely lacking, here.
Caelic 06-09-06, 07:53 AM	?? If, nowhere in a recipe does it state "you do not need to keep the ingredients sitting on the counter once you've finished cooking", do I then need to keep the ingredients out? Poor, poor analogy. For it to hold true, you'd have to gather your ingredients together, turn on the stove, and then put the ingredients away...because, after all, now that you've started cooking the meal, you no longer need them. Another analogy: "Before you start to build your house, you'll need a hammer." Do I suddenly stop needing a hammer after I've driven in the first nail?" "You must have your teaching certificate before you can teach." Once I start teaching, can I let my teaching certificate lapse? Then take the constructive path. Start your own thread-of-threads on "things we've hashed out for the 15th time and don't want to go another round on". Point people at that and say "It doesn't work because of this". And... here's the big bit... once you've done that LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. By that same argument, you could do the same here. You don't have to keep arguing the point unless you enjoy doing so. See above. As for the Page 16 rules, the opinions remain just that: opinions. Here are the facts: 1. It's a printed rule. 2. It's a rule printed in multiple sources. 3. The rule has not been rescinded. 4. Claims on the board to the contrary, there is no rule stating that "Major rules/rules that effect multiple books have to be in the core rulebooks." 5. Multiple inquiries to WotC sources have affirmed that these rules apply to all prestige classes. The sixth isn't a fact, since I can't absolutely prove it, but is an observation. 6. To the best of my knowledge, no inquiry to WotC has returned a result stating or implying that the page 16 rules do NOT apply to all classes. Stacked against this are...well, "woulda, coulda, shoulda." "They woulda printed this in all the books if they meant it." "They coulda meant that it only applies to a few classes." "They shoulda printed it as an errata." None of the arguments are solidly grounded in the rules. Indeed, the only argument that actually has any basis in the rules is the one that cites problematic results. Having promlematic results does not render a rule null and void. Lots of rules have problematic results.
EldonG 06-09-06, 08:02 AM	The basic argument of the Ur Priest is that the page 16 rules break the class, implying that either the person who wrote the class or the person who wrote the rule were not aware of the real rules of the game. I am sure we can come up with examples of places where the person writing one of the official rule books seems ignorant of a certain book. As for the common sense thing, since when has that been important in DnD? The bard class clearly forbids a lawful alignment. Is there any common sense reason why there cannot be a lawful musician? No, of course not. Does that mean the rule is overturned? No, of course not. Common sense and DnD rules do not see eye to eye. When one overwrites game rules, wheter it be based on common sense or another reason, it is called house ruling. This is why RAW exists. There are a lot of builds that make sense thematically, but just do not work by the rules. Want to be a druid who wildshapes into a variety of magical beasts? Think the master of many forms should do it for you? I agree, but the rules do not. It seems like whenever I see the RAW being invoked it is too shut down something that should work, but does not. Sometimes, it goes the other way, and something like Pun Pun is formed. Of course, many people try to use it the other way, because lots of people want to be the guy who made the king of smack or whatever. You can be a lawful musician all day long...you just can't harness the magical energies the bard does. As to the Ur-priest...he breaks the rules. It's inherent to the class. This is what's known as an exception, someone or something that goes beyond the normal way of things. In the astounding case of the Ur-priest, he actually steals the divine energies needed to cast his spells from the gods themselves! *gulp* He breaks the rules in a totally blasphemous way! Isn't the world a strange and dangerous place, with people that can actually circumvent the very laws of nature?
Caelic 06-09-06, 09:13 AM	I know you think you are making a significant distinction here, but I am not seeing it. How is this different from every other requirement? It's the language of the Dragon Disciple and Ur-Priest requirements which is significant. The Dragon Disciple stipulates that the character "cannot already be a half-dragon." The word "already" is noteworthy. If we accept the premise that prestige class requirements only apply prior to taking the first level of the class, there is absolutely no reason for the word "already"--"cannot be a half-dragon" would be sufficient. If, however, we accept that prestige class requirements remain in effect, then there IS a reason to include the word "already"--to indicate that this particular requirement only applies at the time you first take the prestige class. Likewise, in the case of the Ur-Priest, they stipulate that you cannot already have divine casting ability. Moreover, they specify what happens to any divine casting ability you already have--you lose it when you take your first level of Ur-Priest. Really, in this case in particular, I think people are trying to manufacture ambiguity; it takes a very liberal reading to interpret the wording of the class in such a way that this ban includes the divine casting the Ur-Priest gains as a class feature.
Cthulhu_Dreams 06-09-06, 09:44 AM	The biggest problem with it all junkis that it makes the char op'ed boards COMPLETELY USELESS as a resource. I mean, any DM is going to take one look at beholder mage shenanigans and tell you to get the hell away from him. Full casting for Rainbow servants, is while *somewhat* less stupid, equally laughable. Does anyone actually play with this stuff? I mean really. Southern magician to qualify for MT - lollerskates. I'm sure I'm going to eat my words and that some people actually play with this stuff, but I'd suggest it's less than 1% Sure it's awesome in a trick build or whatever, but cool - but the board is called the character optimisation boards, not lets find exploitable holes in the rules board. Side note, but I feel it shares the same underlying causes: The "build everything to level 20" thang that these boards has is equally useless. Who actually plays past level 20? For those that do, 90% of the builds here are not exactly epic ready either. Who spends more than like 1 session at level 20? Ususally the GM is wrapping up the campagin then. It would be more intresting to focus on like 4th-14th, because thats where the games are (in my experince and opinion anyway). The options are admittedly more constrained, but the results are much more.. practical. Tie this in with an eye towards Rule 0's being made by the reasonable man (h0h0h0h0) there might actually be something useful!
EldonG 06-09-06, 11:52 AM	The biggest problem with it all junkis that it makes the char op'ed boards COMPLETELY USELESS as a resource. I mean, any DM is going to take one look at beholder mage shenanigans and tell you to get the hell away from him. Full casting for Rainbow servants, is while *somewhat* less stupid, equally laughable. Does anyone actually play with this stuff? I mean really. Southern magician to qualify for MT - lollerskates. I'm sure I'm going to eat my words and that some people actually play with this stuff, but I'd suggest it's less than 1% Sure it's awesome in a trick build or whatever, but cool - but the board is called the character optimisation boards, not lets find exploitable holes in the rules board. Side note, but I feel it shares the same underlying causes: The "build everything to level 20" thang that these boards has is equally useless. Who actually plays past level 20? For those that do, 90% of the builds here are not exactly epic ready either. Who spends more than like 1 session at level 20? Ususally the GM is wrapping up the campagin then. It would be more intresting to focus on like 4th-14th, because thats where the games are (in my experince and opinion anyway). The options are admittedly more constrained, but the results are much more.. practical. Tie this in with an eye towards Rule 0's being made by the reasonable man (h0h0h0h0) there might actually be something useful! A-friggin'-MEN to your whole post BROTHER! I've seen some builds that are playable all the way through, but they tend to be the ones where nobody is actually *trying* to break the rules. We do have some excellent optimizers on the board, and though the theoretical craziness is fun, it has damn little to do with enjoying a good game of D&D. The good ones remember that, even if they maybe do plunge into the waters of insane game-breaking builds from time to time. Simply put, most of the big tricks play poorly. Those that don't often abuse the game to the point that they may well make it less fun for others involved. Let's hear it for those builds that actually contribute to the game, in every way! :D
Elderich 06-09-06, 02:24 PM	It IS NOT rubbish. It is a PRECEDENT. A PRECEDENT does not have to be a BLANKET. Do you understand the word PRECEDENT? As in, this IS precedented? Meaning, there are stated cases of the existence of said occurrence? The discovery of dinosaur bones in an area sets a precedent: Dinosaur bones have been found there. Nowhere in that statement does it guarantee that there will *only* be dinosaur bones found there.Look, you are using "PRECEDENT" wrong. Firstly, DnD has no "rules of precedent" rules mechanism. Secondly, "precedent" is a blanket idea covering a certian area. A precedent may, or may not be relavant to a paticular topic. But clearly your argument that it is a precedent in the way you stated is rubbish, with all due respect.
EldonG 06-09-06, 04:11 PM	Look, you are using "PRECEDENT" wrong. Firstly, DnD has no "rules of precedent" rules mechanism. Secondly, "precedent" is a blanket idea covering a certian area. A precedent may, or may not be relavant to a paticular topic. But clearly your argument that it is a precedent in the way you stated is rubbish, with all due respect. Look up the definition of the word, please. This will be my only response to such ignorance.
Caelic 06-09-06, 04:19 PM	A good example of "rules as written" versus "rules as I say they are" is going on in the Spellstitched thread at the moment. It's my assertion that a level adjustment of "--" means that the creature isn't considered appropriate as a PC. I base this on the fact that the rules for level adjustment indicate that creatures appropriate as PCs have level adjustments. The opposition position seems to be, if I understand it correctly, ""--" IS a level adjustment, it means the same as +0, except that they didn't just put +0 for some reason, and it only means +0 in some cases and not in others." For rules support for this position, the chief proponent quoted the Monster Manual: The modifier for a nonability is +0. Now: that quote comes from page 312 of the Monster Manual, in the section on "Nonabilities." Rather than violate TOS by quoting that whole thing here, I'll ask interested parties to read the section for themselves. Does anyone , after reading that, seriously believe that it applies to level adjustment? It's a rule dealing specifically and VERY explicitly with ability scores. And yet, here it is being quoted as justification for the notion that every creature without a positive LA has a LA of +0. And the person doing the quoting insists that it's RAW.
EldonG 06-09-06, 04:29 PM	A good example of "rules as written" versus "rules as I say they are" is going on in the Spellstitched thread at the moment. It's my assertion that a level adjustment of "--" means that the creature isn't considered appropriate as a PC. I base this on the fact that the rules for level adjustment indicate that creatures appropriate as PCs have level adjustments. The opposition position seems to be, if I understand it correctly, ""--" IS a level adjustment, it means the same as +0, except that they didn't just put +0 for some reason, and it only means +0 in some cases and not in others." For rules support for this position, the chief proponent quoted the Monster Manual: Now: that quote comes from page 312 of the Monster Manual, in the section on "Nonabilities." Rather than violate TOS by quoting that whole thing here, I'll ask interested parties to read the section for themselves. Does anyone , after reading that, seriously believe that it applies to level adjustment? It's a rule dealing specifically and VERY explicitly with ability scores. And yet, here it is being quoted as justification for the notion that every creature without a positive LA has a LA of +0. And the person doing the quoting insists that it's RAW. *sigh* I can see allowing it, but arguing that it's RAW? It certainly isn't balanced.
Caelic 06-09-06, 04:36 PM	I have absolutely no problem with allowing it. I made some suggestions to the OP, on the assumption that, clearly, it IS allowed in his game; that's fine. I'm not about telling other people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't do in their games. But when someone turns around and says that something like that is RAW, then I have a problem...because, clearly, it isn't.
EldonG 06-09-06, 04:39 PM	I have absolutely no problem with allowing it. I made some suggestions to the OP, on the assumption that, clearly, it IS allowed in his game; that's fine. I'm not about telling other people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't do in their games. But when someone turns around and says that something like that is RAW, then I have a problem...because, clearly, it isn't. That...and...oh, I dunno, maybe only a +1 LA...maybe 2.
Squirrelloid 06-09-06, 07:41 PM	A good example of "rules as written" versus "rules as I say they are" is going on in the Spellstitched thread at the moment. It's my assertion that a level adjustment of "--" means that the creature isn't considered appropriate as a PC. I base this on the fact that the rules for level adjustment indicate that creatures appropriate as PCs have level adjustments. The opposition position seems to be, if I understand it correctly, ""--" IS a level adjustment, it means the same as +0, except that they didn't just put +0 for some reason, and it only means +0 in some cases and not in others." For rules support for this position, the chief proponent quoted the Monster Manual: Now: that quote comes from page 312 of the Monster Manual, in the section on "Nonabilities." Rather than violate TOS by quoting that whole thing here, I'll ask interested parties to read the section for themselves. Does anyone , after reading that, seriously believe that it applies to level adjustment? It's a rule dealing specifically and VERY explicitly with ability scores. And yet, here it is being quoted as justification for the notion that every creature without a positive LA has a LA of +0. And the person doing the quoting insists that it's RAW. I'm in total agreement with you on this one. -- is the equivalent of N/A. If N/A = 0, mathematicians and computer scientists would go crazy. It would seriously break everything we know about math.
Otto the Bugbear 06-09-06, 08:53 PM	A good example of "rules as written" versus "rules as I say they are" is going on in the Spellstitched thread at the moment. It's my assertion that a level adjustment of "--" means that the creature isn't considered appropriate as a PC. I base this on the fact that the rules for level adjustment indicate that creatures appropriate as PCs have level adjustments. The opposition position seems to be, if I understand it correctly, ""--" IS a level adjustment, it means the same as +0, except that they didn't just put +0 for some reason, and it only means +0 in some cases and not in others." For rules support for this position, the chief proponent quoted the Monster Manual: Now: that quote comes from page 312 of the Monster Manual, in the section on "Nonabilities." Rather than violate TOS by quoting that whole thing here, I'll ask interested parties to read the section for themselves. Does anyone , after reading that, seriously believe that it applies to level adjustment? It's a rule dealing specifically and VERY explicitly with ability scores. And yet, here it is being quoted as justification for the notion that every creature without a positive LA has a LA of +0. And the person doing the quoting insists that it's RAW. It's exactly that type of arguement that made me change from a C.O. posters, back to a C.O. lurker. I just can't fight the stupidity of some arguements that I see. It's like a dilbert version of D&D. Pointy Haired Posters who are immune to logic, coffee, and common sense. Those whose main arguement is "let's do it my way". Often as not, when a similar thread comes around in a week, they'll repost the same arguement that got defeated previously. It's almost as if they do it just for the arguement. Keep up the good fight Caelic. bleh Otto :)
mikeatuconn 06-09-06, 09:19 PM	I completely agree with Otto, I have been a member for a while and used to love the C.O. boards but very is little is useable in a normal game. So I propose a solution. Much as [P.E.A.C.H] is addended onto posts I recommend a new addendum [P.O.W.D.R.] = Please Optimize Without Disputable Rules Thus the C.O. boards can have theoretical builds for those who enjoy breaking the game or testing their mathematical or rules lawyering prowess. While at the same time those looking for builds to use in their games can tack on the [POWDR] notation to receive responses which will be allowed in 95% of games. Just a thought, Mikeatuconn
FiestFan 06-09-06, 09:32 PM	Edit: Quotes below are from mikeatuconn. Much as [P.E.A.C.H] is addended onto posts I recommend a new addendum .... As recently as this afternoon, there was a complaint posted on the CO board about the use of PEACH. Other acronyms could very well kick that hostility another notch.... [P.O.W.D.R.] = Please Optimize Without Disputable Rules Given that every person I know of plays with at least one houserule, and that several bits of the RAW are subject to multiple interpretations, we'd have quite a task defining those rules that aren't disputable, let alone sticking to them as the only source for optimization. How would new texts be incorporated, before Errata and FAQs came out to clarify muddled bits? Certainly we couldn't expect people to hold of on requests for help on their new Classes until WotC has made definitive rulings on every grey area in the Class?
mikeatuconn 06-09-06, 09:48 PM	Yes there are a lot of grey areas, and most of them WOTC will never rule on because there is little money to be made on errata (unless you include it in a new book ala Spell Compendium). However I think if there is a disputable rule, [POWDR] should typically rule on the conservative side that is least subject to abuse. For example, with the page 16 ruling, if you go with the conservative interpretation that you must always have your prerequisites even after taking a prestige class then no DM will dispute this with you and will allow you to play the build. Thus disputes are avoided by using the least abusable interpretation. In conclusion, if you don't want to use it, then you don't need to. But I know my DM's will typically rule any disputed rule in a way which will most likely preserve game balance so that no players truly outshine the others. And as such, [POWDR] posts will provide me with builds I can actually use. -Mikeatuconn
EldonG 06-09-06, 09:57 PM	Yes there are a lot of grey areas, and most of them WOTC will never rule on because there is little money to be made on errata (unless you include it in a new book ala Spell Compendium). However I think if there is a disputable rule, [POWDR] should typically rule on the conservative side that is least subject to abuse. For example, with the page 16 ruling, if you go with the conservative interpretation that you must always have your prerequisites even after taking a prestige class then no DM will dispute this with you and will allow you to play the build. Thus disputes are avoided by using the least abusable interpretation. In conclusion, if you don't want to use it, then you don't need to. But I know my DM's will typically rule any disputed rule in a way which will most likely preserve game balance so that no players truly outshine the others. And as such, [POWDR] posts will provide me with builds I can actually use. -Mikeatuconn Not a bad idea, actually.
LogicNinja 06-09-06, 10:00 PM	Some distinction between "game-breaking" optimization and truly practical optimization--not an Ur-Chord with seven classes total, something you might really play for an entire game--would be pretty useful.
FiestFan 06-09-06, 10:01 PM	The conservative side says Dragon Disciple 10 and Ur-Priest are unplayable.... I'm just sayin'.
Caelic 06-09-06, 10:49 PM	I like the P.O.W.D.R. idea a lot. What would go well with it is a thread that simply compiles rules in dispute. Not one that attempts to resolve them, but simply one that collects them in one place and notes "This is controversial, here are the sides of the controversy." As rules issues get definitively resolved, they would get moved out of the P.O.W.D.R. keg.
mikeatuconn 06-09-06, 11:07 PM	[POWDR] Please Optimize Without Disputable Rules A [POWDR] post is one which does not employ disputed rules which can be interpreted multiple ways to attain great power. If a disputed rule is used, it is generally interpreted in a way such that nearly every DM will permit its use. This is generally the most conservative interpretation with the least benefit to the build although a few exceptions do exist where common sense must prevail such as Dragon Disciple level 10 ability not disqualifying you from the class.
Votan 06-10-06, 12:26 AM	[POWDR] Please Optimize Without Disputable Rules A [POWDR] post is one which does not employ disputed rules which can be interpreted multiple ways to attain great power. If a disputed rule is used, it is generally interpreted in a way such that nearly every DM will permit its use. This is generally the most conservative interpretation with the least benefit to the build although a few exceptions do exist where common sense must prevail such as Dragon Disciple level 10 ability not disqualifying you from the class. You might consider adding a point that where a rule is ambiguous that the optimizers need to specifiy mark out the possible problems in interpretation. This shows up in cases where there isn't much dispute but people should be aware of things to point out to their DM as part of the approval process. Example: "Arcane channeling", the level 3 ability of a Duskblade in the PHB II, states ". . . you can use a standard action to vast any touch spell that you know and deliver the spell through your melee weapon." At no point later in the feat does it say anything about these needing to be Duskblade Spells. Therefore, one supposes that a DuskBlade 3/Cleric 13 could cast Harm using Arcane channeling. Were I proposing such a b uild, it might be worht pointing out that nothing prevents this but that you should explicitly check your DMs view on this first.
FiestFan 06-10-06, 08:24 AM	[POWDR] Please Optimize Without Disputable Rules A [POWDR] post is one which does not employ disputed rules which can be interpreted multiple ways to attain great power. If a disputed rule is used, it is generally interpreted in a way such that nearly every DM will permit its use. This is generally the most conservative interpretation with the least benefit to the build although a few exceptions do exist where common sense must prevail such as Dragon Disciple level 10 ability not disqualifying you from the class. My underline. As soon as 'common sense' becomes used as the measuring stick, the POWDR idea becomes problematic. Obviously, there are people - even if they're a minority - who believe common sense says the opposite of what your above example does. There will be consistent problems, especially with newer material, where there are multiple 'common sense' ways to read something. Off the top of my head, Weapon Mastery springs to mind. In the absense of any errata or clarification on it, I saw one DM rule that Weapon Mastery's damage bonus stacks with that of Weapon Specialization - because it doesn't say otherwise in the Feat - and one DM rule that it doesn't stack with that of Weapon Specialization - because it doesn't say otherwise in the Feat. Both claimed theres was the 'common sense' ruling. See the problem?
EldonG 06-10-06, 09:16 AM	My underline. As soon as 'common sense' becomes used as the measuring stick, the POWDR idea becomes problematic. Obviously, there are people - even if they're a minority - who believe common sense says the opposite of what your above example does. There will be consistent problems, especially with newer material, where there are multiple 'common sense' ways to read something. Off the top of my head, Weapon Mastery springs to mind. In the absense of any errata or clarification on it, I saw one DM rule that Weapon Mastery's damage bonus stacks with that of Weapon Specialization - because it doesn't say otherwise in the Feat - and one DM rule that it doesn't stack with that of Weapon Specialization - because it doesn't say otherwise in the Feat. Both claimed theres was the 'common sense' ruling. See the problem? Well, your point *is* somewhat muted by the simple fact that we're talking about acknowledging that the rules change subtly with each new supplement, and furthermore, that we're *attempting* to use rules that have already been hashesd out...but always, always, everything is subject to DM approval. You can only do your best - anybody that expects perfection is doomed to a miserable life. In the long run - this requests optimization with know known disputes. If that is delivered with the best possible foreknowledge and intentions, perhaps with comments about anything that *might* be an issue...it works...it makes the community a more useful thing.
Caelic 06-10-06, 09:34 AM	There's not too much sense to starting this right now, seeing as everything's going to reset to May 31st in a couple of days...but it's definitely worth pursuing. Mike, as this was your idea, would you be willing to set up and maintain the repository of "rules in dispute?"
Votan 06-10-06, 10:12 AM	There's not too much sense to starting this right now, seeing as everything's going to reset to May 31st in a couple of days...but it's definitely worth pursuing. Mike, as this was your idea, would you be willing to set up and maintain the repository of "rules in dispute?" But the idea is wonderful. [My favorite example: I was unaware of the current consensus on Rainbow Servant and I was at a previpous point where the errata seemed to say something that nobody else believed] Being able to figure out where rules are clear and builds are sharply defined vs. where builds are problematic would be extremely helpful. That way I won't make the keystone of a build somehting that won't work.
Elderich 06-10-06, 12:36 PM	Look up the definition of the word, please. This will be my only response to such ignorance.Excellent, so you will stop posting such a silly idea? DnD has no "Precedent" mechanism. Look at the silliness you start to breed when you do! The modifier for a nonability is +0.In the discussion for a LA, people cite information about ability scores and claim "Precedent!" Is LA an abiltiy? Please note that this is not a question about is LA simular to an ability, or is there anything at all common between LA's and abilities. The answer is no. If LA is not an ability score then rules about ability scores do not apply. But please, help me with my ignorance. Where in any book does it say "one should use this precedent"? The text of the rules must decode into one specific meaning or they are ambigious. If they are ambigious, no matter what you do it is a house rule. I think the problem is we argue with people over rules, insted of just pointing out the logic errors in the posts. BIG EDIT And I see that is what was done in the thread. Well done!
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-10-06, 02:15 PM	A good example of "rules as written" versus "rules as I say they are" is going on in the Spellstitched thread at the moment. It's my assertion that a level adjustment of "--" means that the creature isn't considered appropriate as a PC. I base this on the fact that the rules for level adjustment indicate that creatures appropriate as PCs have level adjustments. The opposition position seems to be, if I understand it correctly, ""--" IS a level adjustment, it means the same as +0, except that they didn't just put +0 for some reason, and it only means +0 in some cases and not in others." Does anyone , after reading that, seriously believe that it applies to level adjustment? It's a rule dealing specifically and VERY explicitly with ability scores. And yet, here it is being quoted as justification for the notion that every creature without a positive LA has a LA of +0. And the person doing the quoting insists that it's RAW. This is pretty much where people cross the line from powergamer to munchkin, and why most of the CO threads tend to be crap. It seems everything is about abusing the rules as opposed to any sane optimization. It's crap like this that gives powergaming a bad name.
EldonG 06-10-06, 04:27 PM	This is pretty much where people cross the line from powergamer to munchkin, and why most of the CO threads tend to be crap. It seems everything is about abusing the rules as opposed to any sane optimization. It's crap like this that gives powergaming a bad name. Yes. It's sad....most of the regs here are quite capable, and those few munchkins that can't seem to understand that breaking things by throwing in your own interpretation just so you can sneak in some cheese give the board a bad name. I've seen plenty of regs post monstrosities just to point out how this or that is broken, or could be abused, which helps the DM catch the munchkins...or just as an excercise in craziness. ;) But I sincerely wish the munchkins that can't read (or won't) or at least can't understand basic logic would just step back and *try* to be mature.