Ghostwise - RPing and Rulewise

[Prism]

Is it? Where?

My copy of adventurers vault says secured in the top menu bar of acrobat viewer but lets me copy and paste e.g

"Martyr’s Armor Level 2+
This crimson-tinted armor empowers its wearer to protect allies
even at the expense of his or her own health."


Got it from rpgnow

 

[Mistwell]

My copy of adventurers vault says secured in the top menu bar of acrobat viewer but lets me copy and paste e.g

"Martyr’s Armor Level 2+
This crimson-tinted armor empowers its wearer to protect allies
even at the expense of his or her own health."


Got it from rpgnow

Huh. I didn't know they were for sale. I might have to check that out!

 

[Prism]

Huh. I didn't know they were for sale. I might have to check that out!

The security settings prevent editing the pdf but not copying or selecting and copying the contents. I just copy and paste whole items for character handouts

 

[CapnZapp]

Ahem....your "I just copied and pasted from a PDF file" is showing!

How is this relevant and on-topic to this thread?

 

[IanArgent]

One last item for the threadjack - the PDFs are intended to be copied from; there was a mistake with one of the releases where it was locked down and Scott Rouse (IIRC) posted that this was a mistake and to tell the vendor if it happens again instead of just complaining here

 

[CapnZapp]

The result of your roll is not equal to the roll, it's the roll as modified. Looking for other examples of that wording, I find in the ranger power "split the tree": "Make two attack rolls, take the higher result and apply it to both targets." Clearly we're not applying the higher of two unmodified d20 rolls here; when a d20 rule talks about the result of a roll they mean the whole thing. That's kind of the essence of d20.

Remember I did say the phrasing wasn't rules-lawyer proof.

But if you wish to play, I'm game. Please respond to the following counter-points:
1) your PHB quote talks about check results. It does not even mention rolls in this context. What are your arguments why this quote should be applicable?
2) as a budding rules-lawyer, you should know that bringing up other, unrelated, rules passages provides circumstantial evidence at best. In other words, there is no reason to believe the designer of Split the Tree was making a point in the "check roll result" debate. Besides, how do I know you - in your search for an example that supports your POV - didn't skip examples that does not; or indeed examples that supports the opposite position?
3) assume for the moment you are wrong and the feat is intended to share the roll only and not the entire check result. How would you phrase this in any other way than "both of you can use the higher result of your two rolls"?

To repeat, my view is that any ordinary gamer should go with the "shared roll" interpretation over the "shared check" one (unless clarification/errata becomes available, of course), while rules-lawyers can't be stopped from going with any interpretation they fancy.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Remember I did say the phrasing wasn't rules-lawyer proof.

But if you wish to play, I'm game. Please respond to the following counter-points:
1) your PHB quote talks about check results. It does not even mention rolls in this context. What are your arguments why this quote should be applicable?
2) as a budding rules-lawyer, you should know that bringing up other, unrelated, rules passages provides circumstantial evidence at best. In other words, there is no reason to believe the designer of Split the Tree was making a point in the "check roll result" debate. Besides, how do I know you - in your search for an example that supports your POV - didn't skip examples that does not; or indeed examples that supports the opposite position?
3) assume for the moment you are wrong and the feat is intended to share the roll only and not the entire check result. How would you phrase this in any other way than "both of you can use the higher result of your two rolls"?

To repeat, my view is that any ordinary gamer should go with the "shared roll" interpretation over the "shared check" one (unless clarification/errata becomes available, of course), while rules-lawyers can't be stopped from going with any interpretation they fancy.

I'm not rules-lawyering as I understand the term (trying to find a loophole for advantage); I'm reading a rule and making sense of it in the way both my understanding of English and my experience in D20 seem to indicate is the right way. Until this thread, it hadn't occurred to me that it could be read in the way you read it, but it is certainly worded poorly enough to allow for that interpretation as well.

1. Since the question hinged on the definition of "result of the roll", the place where skill checks are defined seemed like a logical place to start. It's true it refers to the "result of the check", not the "result of the roll"...to me these two phrases were equivalent but they might not be, depending on whether the important word is "roll" or "result". I just went further back, to review the definitions of dice and hnow to roll them, but found nothing that bears on the discussion.
2. I looked at split the tree for one simple reason...I had just finished designing a ranger and remembered that there was a power that involved taking the better of two rolls. I didn't comb through the whole book searching for examples. It sometimes happens in this (and all) games that a poorly worded phrase is worded better elsewhere when the concept is visited again. Not much luck here, and I agree it's not very relevant. A more detailed search now is not turning up anything better, for either side of the argument. Elven accuracy, for example, says "use the second roll", not the second result, but since the attack modifiers are the same there is no functional distinction there.
3. "Both of you can use the higher of your two die rolls." If I really wanted to be unambiguous, "Both of you can use the higher of your two die rolls in this skill check."

I still believe this is intended to be read the way we've been playing it, but you've convinced me there is enough doubt that I will send a customer service query.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Just sent this off, I'll post the answer here:

I have a level 1 halfling with WIS 12 and no training in Perception (check modifier: +1). I use Ghostwise Heritage feat to link to a level 1 elf with WIS 18, a +2 racial bonus, and training in perception (check modifier: +11). When rolling perception, my halfling rolls a 14 (check result: 15), the elf rolls a 10 (check result: 21). Which of these is true?

A. We both use the roll of 14 and apply it to our own bonuses, resulting in Perception 15 for the halfling and Perception 25 for the elf.

B. We both use the check result of 21 achieved by the elf.

C. Something else (please explain)?

To clarify the question, my confusion stems from the phrase "higher result of your two rolls". Is the "result of a roll" the number showing on the die, or is it the same as a "check result?"

 

[ElectricDragon]

So if one enemy had Marked you and you use Split the Tree against two enemies (one of whom is not the Mark-er) and both rolls were the same otherwise; would you get to ignore the -2 attack penalty against the one that didn't mark you? Because this would be the result not the roll.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Caliban]

So if one enemy had Marked you and you use Split the Tree against two enemies (one of whom is not the Mark-er) and both rolls were the same otherwise; would you get to ignore the -2 attack penalty against the one that didn't mark you? Because this would be the result not the roll.

Ciao
Dave

Since you are including the enemy who marked you in your attack, you don't get the penalty. (It's one attack power, even though the power is letting you make two different attack rolls.)