Oort's page

It seems that perhaps you're getting confused here. By making judgments based on context like you are, you are trying to guess what they might have intended to write for that last sentence. You can judge intent based on context, certainly, but "as written", grammatical absolutes have to stand by themselves.

If it said "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any unicorn within 15 feet takes 2d6 fire damage" then, RAW, unicorns are gonna burn.

At that, I'm going to leave this discussion, and only for one reason that I hope you take to heart: you have no understanding of polite discourse whatsoever and it makes it a drag to participate in a discussion with you. You might examine other relationships in your life and see if they aren't bogged down in a similar manner. Were it not for that I'd gladly continue this discussion and try to reach a consensus. I just can't stand any more of your boorish condescension.

Nonono, you have a valid argument for RAI. What I'm saying is that there is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the latter sentence that respects the meaning of its grammar. If the RAW is flawed, it's flawed in such a way that one possible and reasonable suggestion for its actual intention--yours--can't actually be reconciled with the form of that sentence. I'm not saying you're wrong about how it was supposed to be, but in an SAT-question sort of way you can't reconcile the language used with several perfectly reasonable inferences of intent.

It's unclear, but assuming that "any morale bonus from any other source" refers to anything other than what it explicitly says is not "as written".

Oort wrote:

Interpreting it as "all" is RAW.

Making assumptions about context is not RAW.

Unfortunately you are not understanding that they both are RAW.

Oort wrote:

Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint

I intimately understand your flawed viewpoint, I just don't agree with your view that there is one true RAW.

Robert A Matthews wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I would attribute to someone else.

Please, explain how my viewpoint is flawed. I'm not being sarcastic. That's why I posted in this thread. If there are holes in my logic, tell me what they are. That's the point of discourse.

I specifically explained how I reasoned myself into this viewpoint. I have not seen you supply any reasoning whatsoever. If you can supply a refutation in a way that doesn't insult the effort I put into explaining my reasoning then I'll be deeply ingratiated. If you can't supply a logical explanation, I'll continue to think you illogical. Simple as that.

Tell me how it's flawed. Tell me how it's flawed in a way that isn't irrelevant, insulting, unsupported or completely fallacious. If my reasoning is incorrect in some way I'd like to know. But as it stands I've supplied an explanation of my reasoning and you've supplied "because I said so".

The "he" in question is Mr. Risner. Apologies for grumpiness, but at this point I'm kinda done with being dismissed. Discourse I like. Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint only for it to be passingly referred to as "not adding to the discussion" is pretty frustrating.

Confirmation bias will alter your view of how you read RAW.

To the point that I present a well developed logical explanation and he's like "I read your post and it added nothing to the discussion". I have to give him credit, that's a really good cop out for when someone corners you with logic and you want to demonstrate that your brain doesn't even operate on the same level.

Scavion wrote:

Clinging to the developer interpretation doesn't get you brownie points and make you look like a fanboy.

I'm not clinging to anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that it isn't clear cut and only one true RAW. There is a minimum two ways to read it (all and only save vs fear). The fact others will not accept that, is the only reason I'm still posting. Want me to stop posting? Everyone can agree it needs errata or proper FAQ.

Interpreting it as "all" is RAW. "In addition, any morale bonus from any other source" is what is written. Interpreting it as saves against fear is a serviceable proposition as to what may have been the intention, but it is not what the text says. Making assumptions about context is not RAW.

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

I reached the conclusion automatically simply by reading the written words. I think most people do, because I have never heard anyone say that Energy Resistance by RAW doesn't do anything before.

You missed his point. The point is that RAW isn't some nebulous thing void of all interpretation, or you run into all kinds of things like Energy Resistance that without interpretation falls apart.

How does the existence of a vague RAW somewhere else invalidate the definition of "any morale bonus"? You could argue that the intent was to write it differently, but there is only one valid grammatical reading in this case. See my previous posts on the subject. If you'd like I could draw up a sentence diagram and link you to it.

Here's another way of clarifying the grammar. We'll make a new sentence with the same structure.

"The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."

The child gains a free mini chocolate for every snickers bar they purchase. In addition, any 2 chocolate bars the child purchases from any other section earn a free mini chocolate bar.

Silly, I know, but it's a surprisingly effective process in my experience.

The child=The wielder

gains a

free mini snickers bar=morale bonus on saving throws against fear /// (a specific kind of _____)

for every snickers bar they purchase=equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus /// (applying to that specific kind of _____)

.

In addition,

any 2 chocolate bars the child purchases from any other section=any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source /// (a general kind of ______ from any source)

earn a free mini chocolate bar=is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (gains a ____ applying to that instance)

.

Extremely silly, yes, but this is more accessible than diagrammed sentences xD

The enchant lists Heroism as a requirement. That seems to make a decent case for RAI to me.

That being said--with all due respect, James Risner, I think you're misappropriating logic in order to support your view of how the game should be. "Any morale bonus" should be interpreted as any morale bonus. That's supported by the use of "in addition".

Let's break it down grammatically. I understand that it's confusing, but there's really only one interpretation with regards to the syntax as written:

"The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear [equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus]. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased [by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)]."

The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear[...]. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased[...].

The only thing I removed in the second version are the parts saying how much-- the qualifiers, if you will.

With the obfuscations removed, I don't think there's a good argument that "in addition, any morale bonus" could possibly be interpreted as referring to the previous sentence exclusively.

I understand that it's confusing, but your logical stance boils down to any bonus from any source meaning the highest of one particular, aforementioned type of bonus , and that's far enough removed from the actual words used that I don't think it can reasonably be considered RAW.

Burp?

I'm about to start a campaign that I suspect I'm going to be in for the long haul, so I'm trying to get my build planned out from the beginning so I don't end up completely falling behind the party's casters.
I'm working off of the Feral Gnasher archetype for goblin barbarians, which gives it a bite with the grab ability and other goodies for grappling, not to mention that I absolutely love the flavor.

I don't think CN is really worse for RP than any other alignment to someone who misunderstands the alignment system so thoroughly....
I tend to think of alignment based on motivation, and for self-serving mercenaries for hire, CN or even CE makes a lot of sense.

I've been looking at the Feral Gnasher archetype for goblin barbarians, which grants a bite attack with the grab ability. Because improved grapple requires unarmed strike, does that mean that the +2 applies to grapples that don't use unarmed strike? Is it necessary to take "feral combat training" in this instance?