D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[Jimlock]

When the "new" general covers sufficiently the outdated specific, there is never a reason to make a specific update concerning only the specific. That would be madness! In fact the reason the new "general" comes out, is so as to avoid the publication of a number of specifics, that would consequently complicate things even more!

The "new" specific comes out again, once the general begins to show weaknesses, or when it fails to cover certain areas.

Logic is part of what the Rules/Laws are.

 

[Jimlock]

I'm telling you, in a court your case wouldn't stand a chance, because in the court there are humans who employ LOGIC at the same time they refer to Laws.

Laws/Rules are never 100% explicit, because then... the volumes would be LITERARY infinite. There is NO rule/law in any system of this world that can cover each and every case. There is no doubt.

This is why, the process of decision making involves Humans, who can employ the vastness of the human brain so as to intertwine the various rules/laws/facts and come up with a verdict.

 

[jonesy]

When the "new" general covers sufficiently the outdated specific, there is never a reason to make a specific update concerning only the specific.

Sufficiently? Outdated? What? General rules do not cover specific rules. It doesn't matter that the general rule is updated, because it still only covers the general. The specific rule overrides it. That's what it means.

 

[Jimlock]

Sufficiently?

Exactly.

SRD:
This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.

See previous posts for the full text of the above.

Outdated?

Yes. Since the general says otherwise. See above.

General rules do not cover specific rules.

Yes they do. When the come out AFTER the specific and WHEN they cover the specific sufficiently. See also above. ....Also the general covers the specific in many ways... even in the same book. In a cense where the specific is not fully detailed, relying to a certain extent on the general.

It doesn't matter that the general rule is updated, because it still only covers the general.

No it does not cover only the general. It also covers the old-specific that it covers sufficiently.

Only The POST-General specific comes first.

 

[Jimlock]

Here is a fine example/case where your arguments would have been correct.

The 3.0 Arms & Equip. Guide has a weapon special ability by the name "Eager". It provides a bonus to initiative.

For the 3.0 system the "Eager" stands. It is a Specific AFTER the general.

Then 3.5 comes out. DMG, or any other 3.5 book does not say/state anything on "Eager" or any related ability.

Therefore the "eager" weapon stands in 3.5 as well. Because the general did not counter the outdated specific. Therefore the specific still stands.




NOW... If the DMG stated... somewhere that "a weapon cannot have a special ability that improves Initiative", then the "eager" weapon would not have had a place in the 3.5 system.
We would not have required a 3.5 update of the A&EG to tell us so. The DMG statement would have been sufficient.

 

[Pergentile]

All great logic Jimlock, but it is all said in ignorance. You simply don't understand how things work, which might be because of the fact that they DON'T make sense. It sucks. Deal with it.

 

[xigbar]

You could edit that....

 

[Jimlock]

All great logic Jimlock, but it is all said in ignorance. You simply don't understand how things work, which might be because of the fact that they DON'T make sense. It sucks. Deal with it.

Ignorance you say?

Is this an argument that proves that i'm wrong?

I remember answering specifically to what you said in your previous post as far as RAW in concerned.

And you answer to that by saying that i'm ignorant?

 

[Jimlock]

funny thing...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/148178-disciple-dispater-crit-question.html

 

[kitcik]

I am not taking sides. I am setting aside logic. I am just going to try to state the Dandu / RAW argument so it can be easily understood.

1 - In a general rule, the rules state that critical range improvements don't stack.

2 - In a general rule, the rules state that specific rules override general rules.

3 - In a general rule, the rules state that 3.0 material is still valid unless overridden by 3.5 material.

4 - In a specific rule, Psychic Weapon Master can stack with Improved Critical. This rule was published after the others and, in theory, supports WOTC's intent that specific overrides general, even with respect to stacking critical range improvements.

5 - In a specific rule, Disciple of Dispater can stack with Improved Critical. Although this rule was 3.0, it was never overridden (see 3 above). This is a specific rule so it trumps a general rule (see 1 + 2 above). This is consistent with the Psychic Weapon Master (see 4 above).

That is the RAW argument in a nutshell. You can actually ignore the words in pink - that is just window-dressing.