I can 100%.
I'm sure you think that :)
Not every case is going to be as stupid-broken as the "snow-cone wish machine". When the RAW is hazy and a liberal reading is not as stupid-broken then it becomes a bit harder to determine intent. Soundstriker Weird Words is a perfect example of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you that this is frustrating. When we arguing blood money and trading dev quotes, (the original ruling, the conflicting ruling, then the retraction of the conflicting ruling) I changed my mind to match the devs on that.
What this doesn't mean is that I can look at a RAW and derive the authors intent 100% of time. Nobody can. Clarification is sometimes needed like what JJ did with blood money.
So, expect more arguments when the RAW isn't clear. We can guess the authors intent, but guessing doesn't get conclusive answers. Only dev clarification does that.
I can 100%. Does it rely upon a strained reading of RAW, which then results in something crazy stupid broken such as Unlimited Wishes? Then, I can tell you that is NOT the intent of the devs.
Every. Single. Time.
I don't need dev clarification for that.
Strained? There's nothing strained about Blood Money allowing for free Wishes. It very explicitly works. Hell, I'd argue it's mostly intended. The whole purpose of Blood Money is to cover the cost of expensive spell components with STR damage. Wish is a spell with an expensive spell component. Now did the guy who wrote Blood Money know that getting 51 STR with a small amount of effort is possible? Probably not. Did he intend for Blood Money to be uncapped and reward you pumping STR, absolutely. And this the problem, the spell was intended to do something that removes a limitation on casters. Lots of spells do this very intentionally to varying degrees.
Aroden's Spellbane gives a caster immunity to Antimagic field, Nystul's Disjunction and awesomely enough other Aroden's Spellbanes. (I concede the interaction between two Aroden's Spellbane's set to Aroden's Spellbane would probably result in a divide by 0 situation but oh well.)
Paragon Surge giving a feat is a completely intended. Did the person who wrote it think about things like using it on Eldritch Heritage and Expanded Arcana (or Spell Perfection!)? No, they probably didn't, but again the whole intent was to take away a caster limitation and it succeeded (They at the very least had to have contemplated temporarily picking up metamagic feats on the fly with it).
Even something as simple as Summon Monster is completely intended to give the caster access to a meatshield and a host of spell-like and other monster based abilities.
These uses are pretty much how the spells are meant to be used. The fact that some uses of these spells are significantly better others may not have been intended but that seems more an issue of the underlying fact that spells are intentionally giving casters ways to overcome their limitations and not any "twisted RAW reading."
chaoseffect: That's a decent example, but I'd say the fact that nothing is gained between 10 and 22HD as fairly solid evidence that an Efreeti's SLA's are static.
Which means at least 30 people think trying to figure out what the intention of the rule were is a little bit more prudent than what you can squeeze out of the ambiguity of the rules.
Totally agree with trying to figure out intent. The best way to determine that intent is from the mouths of the devs themselves. Otherwise all you have is a guess. That's all I'm saying. You can guess, but you never truly know until it comes from the horses mouth.
So, I don't fault people who want to take RAW as far as it can go. If you take it far enough, to ridiculous benefits like blood money, that's when you get the dev response and the definitive answers you're looking for.
That being said. It all goes back to your best tip. Make sure your table is all on the same page with the rules... However you end up reading them... This will ensure a harmonious game.
|
It seems like this comes down to simple common sense, communication and maturity.
Does the option of having your "Wish Machine" sound logical and even more important fun? Maybe it does at your table. Not at any table I have ever played(Ok maybe when I was 15)
Ciretose really nailed it with #8, I send a complete character sheet to my DM well in advance of the game, including a feat tree up to 19th level.
The group usually gets together and discuss our basic builds(gotta save some surprise for opening scene at the tavern) Along with some brainstorming on strategy etc.
If by chance one of us is not having fun including the DM. We discuss this like adults you know face to face not being passive aggressive messageboard troll.
OK that's my 2 ceramic pieces( still miss dark sun 2E)
No one is arguing that you should play with Snow Clone Wish machines. The argument is that players should not have to intentionally pick up the idiot ball when playing their characters and choose very deliberately to *not* make use of features that are in the game. If me making snow clones and getting wishes (or really even just cloning yourself is incredibly potent) is a problem, why not just do the obvious (even more obvious than coming up with what "you believe the devs intended") and request that Simulacrum be balanced or removed from the game?
In a game where character choices are more closely balanced, there is no need for someone to be feeling overshadowed, which according to you should have the effect of forcing someone to switch their character (this is bad). I'm not suggesting everyone should or must pick the optimal strategies every time, but isn't it a problem that should be corrected if picking the optimal strategies leads to imbalance? I really don't see what all the fuss is about. A large number of casters abilities are very powerful and require houserules or "I believe the dev's intended this" to correct. Instead of going to those lengths wouldn't it be easier to just have them balanced or removed?
The goal of almost everyone with enough system mastery to understand that casters have abilities that are explicitly intended to remove caster limitations is a more balanced game, through correction of these imbalance, not a less balanced one.
Or, and this is just a crazy idea, they could... just be balanced or removed from the game. Otherwise when Jim stats out his sweet Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, you have to tell Jim he can't play it cause it'll make everyone else sad. And that's sad. (Seriously why you so mean Jim?)
I make this post in jest, but the option of discussing things pre-game does nothing to help the idiot ball/switch character situation. If Jim submitted his Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, what is the solution if its not idiot ball or switch character?
No one is arguing that you should play with Snow Clone Wish machines. The argument is that players should not have to intentionally pick up the idiot ball when playing their characters and choose very deliberately to *not* make use of features that are in the game. If me making snow clones and getting wishes (or really even just cloning yourself is incredibly potent) is a problem, why not just do the obvious (even more obvious than coming up with what "you believe the devs intended") and request that Simulacrum be balanced or removed from the game?
Because, along with a wizard spending every resource on STR to get a 51- no one plays that way. No one. The fact that a PC doesn't go for the Snow Clone Wish machine doesn;t mean he's playing like an idiot- in fact the opposite would be true.
The game isn't broken if someone can show a theoretical way of doing so. Like Apple Viruses. Every year they have a conference and some of the best show that it is theoretically possible to do so. Yet, IRL Apple viruses are very rare.
So, my buddy who does a Mac doesn;t use AV (but I use Windows, so I have to). He just is reasonably careful, doesn;t click on funny links and updates timely.
Your theory is that since it could be broken- even if it never is- it needs to be fixed.
This is false.
|
|
I can 100%.I'm sure you think that :)
Not every case is going to be as stupid-broken as the "snow-cone wish machine". When the RAW is hazy and a liberal reading is not as stupid-broken then it becomes a bit harder to determine intent. Soundstriker Weird Words is a perfect example of that.
And when it doubt, why err on the side of power rather than caution?
And what is confusing about Weird words?
"Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus (Fortitude half ), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word."
1d8+Charisma vs a target (up to 10) within 30 feet isn't particularly impressive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1.
Ciretoce´s premise seems to be "if something bad is happening is because you are not taking into account the intent", But I just disagree.
particulary the blood money examle is a good one. The whole purpose of the spells is that spellcaster save money, does the autor of the spel really have the intention that spellcasters would not use taht spells so save a lot of money when casting other expensive spells?.
There you go reading into things beyond the text...
My premise is that when you read anything rules related or technical, you are reading to figure out what the person who wrote the rules meant, not what you think it means.
It is the difference between fluff and crunch.
As to blood money, James Jacobs said the intent was for it to only be used on spells that take a round or less to cast. The spell more or less says the spell must be cast in that round. That eliminates pretty much all of the non-combat spells with material components.
Hopefully they will issue a clarification soon. Not that many people seem to care what the Devs intention was if it closes a loophole they like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make this post in jest, but the option of discussing things pre-game does nothing to help the idiot ball/switch character situation. If Jim submitted his Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, what is the solution if its not idiot ball or switch character?
You don't invite Jim to play, because Jim is an idiot.
I went to the Air and Space Museum annex with my Daughter the other day. The only thing preventing me from running up and punching a space shuttle is a rope and common sense.
I suppose they could build an elaborate cage around it to keep all the idiots away and lessen the experience for everyone else. But, instead, they rely on common sense and the understood consequences for crossing that rope.
The consequences for crossing that rope in this context isn't incarceration, but it is often exile.
And personally, I would prefer the Devs be able to invest more time in adding cool features than idiotproofing the game.
Unfortunately to many people seem to want to praise people who punch space shuttles, like they actually accomplished something other than being a jackass...
And when it doubt, why err on the side of power rather than caution?
And what is confusing about Weird words?
"Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus (Fortitude half ), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word."
1d8+Charisma vs a target (up to 10) within 30 feet isn't particularly impressive.
The confusing aspect was whether or not you could target the same target with each word. Erring on the side of caution would say no. Erring on the side of power suggests yes.
My search-fu is weak this morning, but it has been ruled on that you can indeed target the same target. People taking the more conservative reading were actually in the wrong on this ability.
I think this is where we differ. While you want to take a more conservative reading to head off any potential problems before they arrive. I prefer to allow myself and my players to explore the limits of their creativity. When a ridiculous problem is discovered like the snow-cone wish machine, then we know we've found that limit... "Stress Testing" as you've called it.
I think in reading 95% of rules, our rules decisions will be the same with either method. We just take different routes to get there.
I went to the Air and Space Museum annex with my Daughter the other day. The only thing preventing me from running up and punching a space shuttle is a rope and common sense.
In this case, the "rope" was your limiting factor (I'm assuming there was a sign to not touch the shuttle somewhere too?). If there was no rope there and no sign, it can be reasonably assumed that you are allowed to touch it.
You don't invite Jim to play, because Jim is an idiot.
I make this post in jest, but the option of discussing things pre-game does nothing to help the idiot ball/switch character situation. If Jim submitted his Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, what is the solution if its not idiot ball or switch character?
Agreed. If Jim is ignoring the house rules that were established pre-game, then Jim is an idiot and should be kicked out.
|
|
I think this is where we differ. While you want to take a more conservative reading to head off any potential problems before they arrive. I prefer to allow myself and my players to explore the limits of their creativity.
Then you aren't reading RAW, are you?
If you are asking your players to be creative with reading rules, rather than trying to understand the intent of the rules and be creative with character design within that framework...
Where we diverge is I don't think it is anything to be praised if you find a "creative" reading of the rule that gives you more power any more than I think it is something to be praised if you find a "creative" way to see the answer sheet on your teachers desk during a test.
And I feel like quite a few people on here are arguing the teacher left it out on purpose, so it is cruel to not let them us it.
Personally, I don't value people who invest "creativity" into ways to read the rules than. I prefer they invest that creativity into making an interesting character.
|
|
In this case, the "rope" was your limiting factor (I'm assuming there was a sign to not touch the shuttle somewhere too?). If there was no rope there and no sign, it can be reasonably assumed that you are allowed to touch it.
When you walk around in public, do you just walk up to people and touch them?
There is no sign or rope.
|
|
The confusing aspect was whether or not you could target the same target with each word. Erring on the side of caution would say no. Erring on the side of power suggests yes.And when it doubt, why err on the side of power rather than caution?
And what is confusing about Weird words?
"Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus (Fortitude half ), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word."
1d8+Charisma vs a target (up to 10) within 30 feet isn't particularly impressive.
And while I'm here, let us take a look at this whole series of posts to illustrate my point.
You have found an abiltiy called weird words. It says what I've listed above.
You can read it two ways. One allows you to do 1d8 + Charisma damage (likely your highest stat) against up to a total of 10 targets at 10th level as a ranged touch, any type you like, within 30 feet.
One reading lets you do 10d8 + 10 times your charisma modifier vs a single target.
It takes the place of a 3rd level wizard spell, so we can compare it to say fireball. Fireball is 10d6 max, average damage of 35 at 10th level, but no touch ac and multiple target. 9th level spell called ray of frost can do a max of 25d6 (87 avg) plus 1d4 dex damage.
If you have an 18 charisma (very reasonable) you would average 85 damage at 10th level. If you have a 20 (also very reasonable) you do 95 at 10th level.
The question you ask yourself is, did the Devs mean for me to be able to do 95 hit points of damage to a single target as part of bardic music in place of what is basically a 2nd level spell (suggestion) or is the other reading more likely what they were intending.
Did they mean 1d8 + charisma damage against up to 10 targets or 10d8 +50 against a single target?
Isn't that the actual question you should be asking? Regardless of your answer, it is absurd to pretend you can't look at the question honestly.
|
|
People are not objects on display.
Do you walk up to objects on display and assume you can touch them unless there is a sign specifically saying "Don't touch".
Do the rules really need to be written like we are 5 year olds, because otherwise people start eating paste because "It wasn't forbidden..."
Unless you are referring to the house rule of "Don't be a jackass or you won't be invited back" no house rules are involved in this example.
Agreed. If Jim is ignoring the house rules that were established pre-game, then Jim is an idiot and should be kicked out.
I'm referring to the comment Anzyr wrote to which you responded. Anzyr wrote: but the option of discussing things pre-game does nothing to help the idiot ball/switch character situation
I used the phrase house rules, which I would assume would be needed to avoid a char to abuse the Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, since by raw it is allowed.
And yes. if it is discussed pre-game to not allow a Paragon Surging Half-Elf Oracle, and Jim shows up with one anyway, then it falls under the "Don't be a jackass or you won't be invited back" rule.
And, why is it every-time I agree with you, you find it necessary to argue anyway?
I think this is where we differ. While you want to take a more conservative reading to head off any potential problems before they arrive. I prefer to allow myself and my players to explore the limits of their creativity.
Then you aren't reading RAW, are you?
If you are asking your players to be creative with reading rules, rather than trying to understand the intent of the rules and be creative with character design within that framework...
Where we diverge is I don't think it is anything to be praised if you find a "creative" reading of the rule that gives you more power any more than I think it is something to be praised if you find a "creative" way to see the answer sheet on your teachers desk during a test.
And I feel like quite a few people on here are arguing the teacher left it out on purpose, so it is cruel to not let them us it.
Personally, I don't value people who invest "creativity" into ways to read the rules than. I prefer they invest that creativity into making an interesting character.
I'm a big RAW advocate. When RAW doesn't permit it, then it can't be done, when RAW doesn't restrict it, I also don't restrict it. Because you want to put some RAI restriction on something doesn't make it RAW.
In this case, the "rope" was your limiting factor (I'm assuming there was a sign to not touch the shuttle somewhere too?). If there was no rope there and no sign, it can be reasonably assumed that you are allowed to touch it.When you walk around in public, do you just walk up to people and touch them?
There is no sign or rope.
Actually, just the other day I touched an old co-worker by the arm at an ice-cream shop to get his attention. So, yes, I guess I do.
Of course there are written rules as to just what is allowed... ie. you can't assault someone. Am I supposed to read the RAW for assault and extrapolate a RAI that I'm never allowed to touch anybody?
|
|
It isn't the GM's responsibilty to tell a player "Don't try to bring something broken to the game".
If that has to be said, you invited the wrong person.
Rules in game terms are not a list of things you can't do. They are a list of things you can do. They are the framework of the game.
You can't say you are for RAW and then argue that anything not written is allowed and be logically consistent.
People are not objects on display.Do you walk up to objects on display and assume you can touch them unless there is a sign specifically saying "Don't touch".
Yes, that is exactly what I assume.
And I assume even paste comes with a warning label to not eat it.
|
|
In this case, the "rope" was your limiting factor (I'm assuming there was a sign to not touch the shuttle somewhere too?). If there was no rope there and no sign, it can be reasonably assumed that you are allowed to touch it.When you walk around in public, do you just walk up to people and touch them?
There is no sign or rope.
Actually, just the other day I touched an old co-worker by the arm at an ice-cream shop to get his attention. So, yes, I guess I do.
Of course there are written rules as to just what is allowed... ie. you can't assault someone. Am I supposed to read the RAW for assault and extrapolate a RAI that I'm never allowed to touch anybody?
I would presume if it wasn't who you thought it was and they turned around you would then have been in the wrong.
And, depending on where you touched them and how they took it, yes, technically you shouldn't touch anyone who doesn't want you to touch them.
Now you are arguing both sides...
In this case, the "rope" was your limiting factor (I'm assuming there was a sign to not touch the shuttle somewhere too?). If there was no rope there and no sign, it can be reasonably assumed that you are allowed to touch it.When you walk around in public, do you just walk up to people and touch them?
There is no sign or rope.
Actually, just the other day I touched an old co-worker by the arm at an ice-cream shop to get his attention. So, yes, I guess I do.
Of course there are written rules as to just what is allowed... ie. you can't assault someone. Am I supposed to read the RAW for assault and extrapolate a RAI that I'm never allowed to touch anybody?
I would presume if it wasn't who you thought it was and they turned around you would then have been in the wrong.
And, depending on where you touched them and how they took it, yes, technically you shouldn't touch anyone who doesn't want you to touch them.
Now you are arguing both sides...
Not arguing both sides. Just RAW side. Depending on where I touched them it could be considered sexual assault, which is indeed a written rule. If whom I touched was the wrong person, I would say I'm sorry, but I still didn't break the law by touching their arm.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are not objects on display.Do you walk up to objects on display and assume you can touch them unless there is a sign specifically saying "Don't touch".
Yes, that is exactly what I assume.
And I assume even paste comes with a warning label to not eat it.
Then in order to game with you we would need a rulebook the size of the encyclopedia britannica?
You can not do this on a box, you can not do this with a fox, you cannot do this...
|
|
You are arguing that RAW is all that you can do, except you are also arguing if RAW doesn't explicitly say you can't, then you can.
Rule as written either is you follow the rules as written, without extrapolation beyond the rule as written, or it isn't "Rule as written".
Or do you creatively read the meaning of Rule as Written as well?
Then in order to game with you we would need a rulebook the size of the encyclopedia britannica?
You can not do this on a box, you can not do this with a fox, you cannot do this...
Oh. Now I get it.. You're using the Dr. Seuss CRB.
Everything is so much clearer now ;)
You are arguing that RAW is all that you can do, except you are also arguing if RAW doesn't explicitly say you can't, then you can.
Rule as written either is you follow the rules as written, without extrapolation beyond the rule as written, or it isn't "Rule as written".
Or do you creatively read the meaning of Rule as Written as well?
Again, it's you who seem to be putting restrictions on what the RAW actually says. Via RAW, you can use blood money to cast Wish for free. It is you who is adding the restrictions, because "It's broken".
Some RAW is broken, but that doesn't mean it's not still RAW by definition.
|
|
You are arguing that RAW is all that you can do, except you are also arguing if RAW doesn't explicitly say you can't, then you can.
Rule as written either is you follow the rules as written, without extrapolation beyond the rule as written, or it isn't "Rule as written".
Or do you creatively read the meaning of Rule as Written as well?
Again, it's you who seem to be putting restrictions on what the RAW actually says. Via RAW, you can use blood money to cast Wish for free. It is you who is adding the restrictions, because "It's broken".
Some RAW is broken, but that doesn't mean it's not still RAW by definition.
Restrictions on what RAW says...that is funny.
Rule as written is what is written. You don't add or subtract. You seem to think Rule as Written means Rule as I can extrapolate.
Blood money says that it works on spells cast in the same round.
Spells that take more than one round to cast...
That is rule as written. As written, you can't use it with a spell that takes more than one round to cast.
EDIT: Also, take the derail to the other thread or stay on target please.
That is, one target...
Unless you read into it things that aren't written...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while I'm here, let us take a look at this whole series of posts to illustrate my point.
wall of text:You have found an abiltiy called weird words. It says what I've listed above.You can read it two ways. One allows you to do 1d8 + Charisma damage (likely your highest stat) against up to a total of 10 targets at 10th level as a ranged touch, any type you like, within 30 feet.
One reading lets you do 10d8 + 10 times your charisma modifier vs a single target.
It takes the place of a 3rd level wizard spell, so we can compare it to say fireball. Fireball is 10d6 max, average damage of 35 at 10th level, but no touch ac and multiple target. 9th level spell called ray of frost can do a max of 25d6 (87 avg) plus 1d4 dex damage.
If you have an 18 charisma (very reasonable) you would average 85 damage at 10th level. If you have a 20 (also very reasonable) you do 95 at 10th level.
The question you ask yourself is, did the Devs mean for me to be able to do 95 hit points of damage to a single target as part of bardic music in place of what is basically a 2nd level spell (suggestion) or is the other reading more likely what they were intending.
Did they mean 1d8 + charisma damage against up to 10 targets or 10d8 +50 against a single target?
Isn't that the actual question you should be asking? Regardless of your answer, it is absurd to pretend you can't look at the question honestly.
One developer thinks it means all words can target one enemy.
If a GM is consistent in how they read the rules (either uber-conservatively or quite loosely) it really doesn't matter as long as the group is having fun. When there are disagreements on the forums the Devs can pipe up and clarify (when needed) or leave it to individual GMs (b/c they trust us to do that). And I'm fine w/ that.
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
|
|
One developer thinks it means all words can target one enemy.
Opening line.
"First off... I'm not sure where the "Sound Striker" comes from."
But again, I'm not saying which way is right or wrong. I'm saying you don't get to abdicate looking at the context when the rule is ambiguous, and you don't get to pick the better option of two potential readings.
Edit: And looking at it a little more, it may not be that bad. It has two saves (touch ac and fort) and DR applies.
And while I'm here, let us take a look at this whole series of posts to illustrate my point.
** spoiler omitted **
Isn't that the actual question you should be asking? Regardless of your answer, it is absurd to pretend you can't look at the question honestly.
One developer thinks it means all words can target one enemy.
If a GM is consistent in how they read the rules (either uber-conservatively or quite loosely) it really doesn't matter as long as the group is having fun. When there are disagreements on the forums the Devs can pipe up and clarify (when needed) or leave it to individual GMs (b/c they trust us to do that). And I'm fine w/ that.
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
Thanks for finding this, it's illustrates my point that unclear RAW that can be interpreted in different ways sometimes favors the more liberal reading. And that no-one should assume to expect everyone to agree with you when the RAW is not clear. In this case, JJ clarified an unclear RAW.
One developer thinks it means all words can target one enemy.
Opening line.
"First off... I'm not sure where the "Sound Striker" comes from."
But again, I'm not saying which way is right or wrong. I'm saying you don't get to abdicate looking at the context when the rule is ambiguous, and you don't get to pick the better option of two potential readings.
What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that people have differing views and can come to the table with a different perspective than yours. It doesn't make them terrible people, it just makes them human. This is why your tip #8 is so important. When everyone is on the same page, it doesn't matter what the rule says, because everyone knows what to expect. And that is the key to a harmonious game.
Restrictions on what RAW says...that is funny.
Rule as written is what is written. You don't add or subtract. You seem to think Rule as Written means Rule as I can extrapolate.
Blood money says that it works on spells cast in the same round.
Spells that take more than one round to cast...
That is rule as written. As written, you can't use it with a spell that takes more than one round to cast.
EDIT: Also, take the derail to the other thread or stay on target please.
That is, one target...
Unless you read into it things that aren't written...
I think RAW is RAW, it is you who extrapolate some hidden RAI that may or may not exist into the RAW.
Blood Money to cast a Wish spell is legal precisely because it is a standard action to cast Wish. So yes we agree that it is against RAW to use it on spells that take longer than a standard action.
I'm perfectly on target here.
|
|
@Dr Grecko - I fully acknowledge that people can have differing views. That is why saying "RAW" like a mantra is ridiculous.
People can read the same thing lots of different ways.
Which is why the question isn't "How do I think this works" but "How do I think it was meant to work."
Can that vary? Yes. That is why you have a GM.
But no, you aren't entitled to your personal reading of the rules, and no just because something isn't explicitedly forbidden is it permitted, and deciding not to manipulate an exploit you came up with isn't a gentlemans agreement with your GM. It is you not being a jackass.
Off to actually do some work for a few hours.
@Dr Grecko - I fully acknowledge that people can have differing views. That is why saying "RAW" like a mantra is ridiculous.
People can read the same thing lots of different ways.
Which is why the question isn't "How do I think this works" but "How do I think it was meant to work."
Can that vary? Yes. That is why you have a GM.
But no, you aren't entitled to your personal reading of the rules, and no just because something isn't explicitedly forbidden is it permitted, and deciding not to manipulate an exploit you came up with isn't a gentlemans agreement with your GM. It is you not being a jackass.
Off to actually do some work for a few hours.
I can accept this, it really does come down to the GM. Although, I think a gentleman's agreement and not being a jackass are probably one in the same thing. :)
Anyway, I enjoyed our back and forth, frustrating as it may have been.
Have fun at work, see you soon.
|
First, touching someone without consent is assault, shaking a finger at someone agressively is assault. So yes, itis assault to touch someone on the arm even to get their attention.
Two, Raw provides a baseline, things not covered or unclear should not be all considered with the same way. Sometimes it should be dissallowed and sometimes it should be allowed, it is up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis and the right answer is the one thats best for the game at the time (aka the answer can change)
First, touching someone without consent is assault, shaking a finger at someone agressively is assault. So yes, itis assault to touch someone on the arm even to get their attention.
Finger shaking? Is that a state law? never heard of it before.
Even then, we're looking at: At what point is a touch considered assault? Accidentally bumping into someone? How "aggressive" does the finger shake need to be?
These are the examples of where unclear laws can lead to confusion and I would assume through various case laws where rulings have been made on what is and isn't an assault have helped define the unclear law.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet merciful Pete.
The more I see of this discussion the more it reminds me of College theology courses, with the protestants arguing sola scriptura and the Catholics going on about the tradition and magisterium.
The RAW side of things seem designed around thumping the rulebook without care or concern as to who wrote it, or why, until 'official errata' is issued.
The RAI side is weakened because so many people keep commenting, leaving interpretations vague.
TSR (for 1e, 2e, alternity, mystara, dragondice, etc, etc) used to put this on the Dragon Magazine Sage Advice, which unfortunately wasn't collected, but was spread out over dozens and dozens of magazines.
We need like a Paizo Rules-Pope or something, someone who's opinion trumps all others on questions of rules statements.
We should chip together and buy James a fancy hat or something.
|
|
I can accept this, it really does come down to the GM. Although, I think a gentleman's agreement and not being a jackass are probably one in the same thing. :)
Anyway, I enjoyed our back and forth, frustrating as it may have been.
Have fun at work, see you soon.
Oh no, you are one of the many rational people on the other side of this debate. We could play at the same table and agree 99% of the time.
Unfortunately we both have less reasonable people on each of our sides :)