Bracers of Striking & weapon adjustment spells
- Thread starter Brekki
- Start date
- Status
Why do I find this so damned ironically funny!?!
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Caliban said:
He finds it funny because you usually argue from the clear positon of the books and now you're appealing to the spirit of the rules. I don't find it funny, but maybe that's just me.
U'm with you on magic weapon vs. magic fang - didn't one of the designers weigh in on this, too?
CRGreathouse said:
*shrug* I've always held that the intent of the rules is as important as the letter of the rules. Most of the times they are in agreement.
When I cannot discern the intent, then I fall back on the letter. When the letter of the rules is vague, or ambiguous given the context, then you fall back on the intent.
spunky_mutters
First Post
The problem here is that the letter of the rules is all that we have to discern their intent.
No matter what you claim about him being wrong (and he even seems to feel that he is going against the intent), a strict interpretation would take the absence of the term manufactured weapons in favour of the more generalized weapons to include natural weapons.
This is the rules forum after all. If we fall back on arguing that intent trumps a strict but (subjectively) over-powerful interpretation of the spell description, we are ignoring the rules.
I also agree that the intent was most likely to restrict this to manufactured weapons, and that the inclusion of natural weapons in the weapons category seems to be spotty at best, but as long as we're arguing rules, I don't mind playing devil's advocate.
No matter what you claim about him being wrong (and he even seems to feel that he is going against the intent), a strict interpretation would take the absence of the term manufactured weapons in favour of the more generalized weapons to include natural weapons.
This is the rules forum after all. If we fall back on arguing that intent trumps a strict but (subjectively) over-powerful interpretation of the spell description, we are ignoring the rules.
I also agree that the intent was most likely to restrict this to manufactured weapons, and that the inclusion of natural weapons in the weapons category seems to be spotty at best, but as long as we're arguing rules, I don't mind playing devil's advocate.
spunky_mutters said:
I agree, now that AGGEMAM has set me straight on what is a weapon.
A lot of rules discussions disintegrate into what is written vs. what is the intent.
Personally, I will tend to go on the side of what is written most every time.
There are two reasons for that:
1) Consistency for my players. Even if a rule is inconsistent with other similar rules, at least my players know that if it says X on page 86, X is what we go by.
2) Consistency within discussions here on the boards. This is a rules forum, hence, Emails from the Sage don’t really mean much (at least to me) unless there is a total lack of clarity in the rules. Just because the designers meant X does not mean that the Y in the book is either wrong, or unbalanced.
*shrug*
Whatever. It's your game, I really don't care.
I will always choose to play the game as I believe it was meant to be played (especially when the intent is obvious, as it is in this case), and choose not to take every opportunity to use the imperfect language of the authors to make my characters more powerful than intended. In this case, I believe that in the context that the GMW spell uses the word "weapon", when compared to Greater Magic Fang, it is obvious that it is intended to mean "manufactured weapons." So far, every single person on this thread has reached the same conclusion, but some have chosen to ignore it. If you want to call it a house rule because you disagree with it, that's one thing. This is just wrong.
This is not a contest between me and the game designers, with me trying to catch them out on every loophole or imprecise phrase. I outgrew that bit of childishness many years ago.
I want to play a game that is fun and balanced, and as the rules were intended to work. I find absolutely no pleasure in twisting the words of the designers just to make my characters more powerful. That is not a challenge.
If it makes you feel superior or smug to go by the letter of the rules and then chant "they didn't state in exactly the right way, so I can ignore them!!", then go ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you.
Whatever. It's your game, I really don't care.
I will always choose to play the game as I believe it was meant to be played (especially when the intent is obvious, as it is in this case), and choose not to take every opportunity to use the imperfect language of the authors to make my characters more powerful than intended. In this case, I believe that in the context that the GMW spell uses the word "weapon", when compared to Greater Magic Fang, it is obvious that it is intended to mean "manufactured weapons." So far, every single person on this thread has reached the same conclusion, but some have chosen to ignore it. If you want to call it a house rule because you disagree with it, that's one thing. This is just wrong.
This is not a contest between me and the game designers, with me trying to catch them out on every loophole or imprecise phrase. I outgrew that bit of childishness many years ago.
I want to play a game that is fun and balanced, and as the rules were intended to work. I find absolutely no pleasure in twisting the words of the designers just to make my characters more powerful. That is not a challenge.
If it makes you feel superior or smug to go by the letter of the rules and then chant "they didn't state in exactly the right way, so I can ignore them!!", then go ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you.
Last edited:
Brekki
First Post
The DM I'm playing with was lenient and we decided that the bracers were ment to give your natural weapons special magical abilities. So any ability given or cast on the bracers effects how you fight with your fists/claws.
So now I will probably get my Keen Ghost Touch Bracers of Striking +2
So now I will probably get my Keen Ghost Touch Bracers of Striking +2
Caliban said:
*shrug*
Whatever. It's your game, I really don't care.
Caliban said:
Actually, I reached that conclusion on MW and GMW not from reading the spell and the rules, but because a lot of people here on the boards over the last few years have made that assumption. When people see the word weapon, they naturally assume it means a physical weapon.
There are “sacred cows” in DND. I think this happens to be a new one that unintentionally got added in 3E not because someone’s intent was for it to be that way, but rather because that’s how people read it and it just propagated out into our community.
Like anywhere else, if you read something often enough here on the message boards, eventually it becomes fact in your mind.
And, if they errata it to make it non-attached weapons (I think manufactured is wrong, you should be able to pick up a tree branch and use this spell on it), I will run it that way in my game.
Caliban said:
Oh, so the people who choose to follow the game as written are now childish.
Caliban said:
I want to discuss the game here in a fun way. I find absolutely no pleasure when people assume motivations on my part and twist my words to make me sound like I am doing something wrong when I’m not.
Caliban said:
Actually, I think you have it backwards.
If it makes you feel superior or smug to think that you are totally omnipotent concerning the designers intent and you do this at the expense of your players reading of the rules and at the expense of sounding arrogant and smug here on the boards, then go ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you.
What’s the matter Caliban? Did your orange juice spill into your corn flakes this morning?
- Status
