Bracers of Striking & weapon adjustment spells

[KarinsDad]

I'm afraid I don't see a disconnect.

I'm sure everyone else sees it.

You claim that you play by the intent of the rules.

You then claim that you take advantage of a rule where you are not DM where it is obviously not the intent (it may be allowed in that campaign, but it is not the intent of the original rule and you know it).

If you are always play by the intent of the rules, you would not cast scroll spells in armor, regardless of whether it is allowed in the game.

It's hypocritical.


Plus, you fired up kreynolds when he pointed out this hypocrisy. That alone desires a smack in the head with a wet fish.

 

[Caliban]

I'm sure everyone else sees it.

Only if they want to misconstrue what I said.

You claim that you play by the intent of the rules.

I claim that I run my own games by what I believe is the intent of the rules (except where I change the rules to fit my campaign better). When I said "play" in my original post, I was referring to campaigns that I personally run, or home campaigns where I have influence with the DM.

I apologize for confusing you with my imprecise language. I forgot that you are "letter of the rules" guy who is apparently incapable of actually reading things in context and has to have every little caveat and exception spelled out for him or he will try to twist things. Have I detailed my position enough for you, or do you want a 3 page treatise on exactly how and why I run my games as I do?

You then claim that you take advantage of a rule where you are not DM where it is obviously not the intent (it may be allowed in that campaign, but it is not the intent of the original rule and you know it).

I don't believe it is the intent of the original rule, but the campaign DM has ruled otherwise. It's a house rule for that campaign. Note that I have absolutely no problem with house rules, and stated this in my original post. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

Thus, I am using the rule exactly as intended by the DM. There is no conflict on my part as a player.

If you are always play by the intent of the rules, you would not cast scroll spells in armor, regardless of whether it is allowed in the game.

It's not the intent of the rules in this campaign, as decreed by the Sage and the Campaign DM's. The campaign has changed the rule. It's different than what I believe is the core rule in this instance. However, it's their call and I have to abide by it.

It's hypocritical.

No, it's not. I can disagree with a campaign rule and still use it without being hypocritical. Players deal with this all the time, in every campaign, home or living.

Plus, you fired up kreynolds when he pointed out this hypocrisy. That alone desires a smack in the head with a wet fish.

I am not being a hypocrite. I'm playing the game using the house rules that the campaign DM institutes.

Find a real issue to debate.

 

[KarinsDad]

I claim that I run my own games by what I believe is the intent of the rules (except where I change the rules to fit my campaign better). When I said "play" in my original post, I was referring to campaigns that I personally run, or home campaigns where I have influence with the DM.

Ohhhh.

The big caveat. I said this, but I meant that.

I seem to recall several posts on your part that you talked about yourself playing the game. No mention in any of them as to whether as a player, or a DM.

But, now you are pulling out the little house rule is ok loophole to your original statement.

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.

I want to play a game that is fun and balanced, and as the rules were intended to work.

The spirit of the rules is every bit important as the letter of the rules. This is NOT a house rule, it is the obvious intent of the rule.

You acknowledge the obvious intent of the rules, yet choose to ignore it in favor of a more powerful interpretation. You are wrong.

Quite frankly, that is EXACTLY what you are doing in your Dwarve’s case.

It’s hypocritical to say that other people are wrong when you do the exact same thing.

Four people here see it that way.

But, in their “superior and smug” way, they must be wrong. Uh huh.

 

[Caliban]

Ohhhh.

The big caveat. I said this, but I meant that.

I meant what I said. I just used the term "play" when I should have said "run."

Do you always say exactly what you mean the first time you say it? Is it alright if I verbally attack you every time you try to explain your position better in the future?

I seem to recall several posts on your part that you talked about yourself playing the game. No mention in any of them as to whether as a player, or a DM.

It's that whole context thing again. I'm sorry that you are having problems with this.

But, now you are pulling out the little house rule is ok loophole to your original statement.

It's not a loophole. I meant it. If you disagree with a rule and house rule it for your game, that's exactly what DM is supposed to do.

Quite frankly, that is EXACTLY what you are doing in your Dwarve’s case.

No, it's not. I'm using the exactly as the campaign DM's intend it to be used. They decided to change the intent and spirit of the rule (or they decided to accept it when the D&D FAQ changed it if you want to be extra precise and by the letter).

I have no control over it, but I agreed to play by their rules when I joined the campaign.

It’s hypocritical to say that other people are wrong when you do the exact same thing.

Your right, it is. But I'm not doing the exact same thing. I know you are smarter than this KD. Please think about this a little before you respond in anger.

Four people here see it that way.

Which four?

I only see kreynolds and yourself. Eviloverlord doesn't seem to have decided yet, and asked me to clarify my position, which I have.

But, in their “superior and smug” way, they must be wrong. Uh huh.

Please think about what you are saying. You are being smug and superior right now. You usually aren't this antagonistic. It hurts me to see you act this way. I used to have a lot of respect for you.

What I was referring to was when you know the intent of the rules, agree with the intent of the rule, and choose to ignore it anyway. That is not the case in the LG campaign with my dwarf.

The rule that affects my dwarf was changed in a campaign that I play in. I wish it wasn't changed, but it was. It's a change that only applies where the D&D FAQ is canon, which right now is only the LG campaign. I'm not choosing to ignore the rule, the rule was changed. So the intent and spirit of the rule has been changed. Since the rule is different (and thus the intent is different), and it is clearly spelled out, how can it be hypocrisy for me to follow the rule?

 

[KarinsDad]

Please think about what you are saying. You are being smug and superior right now. You usually aren't this antagonistic. It hurts me to see you act this way. I used to have a lot of respect for you.

So, because I disagree with your assessment, you no longer have respect for me?

What I was referring to was when you know the intent of the rules, agree with the intent of the rule, and choose to ignore it anyway. That is not the case in the LG campaign with my dwarf.

Yes, but he is choosing to ignore it since there is a different rule in the book that supports his position.

You are choosing to ignore it since your DM changed the intent of the rule.

In either case, the original intent of the rule is being ignored, it is merely a slightly different rationalization as to why that is ok that is different here. In his case, because there is a different rule that allows it. In your case, because there is a FAQ rule that allows it.

In either case, the player can choose to ignore the "house rule" in favor of the original intent. In his case, by not casting the spell on natural weapons. In your case, you can choose to not cast scrolls in armor. Instead, you choose to take the moral low ground since your character benefits from casting scrolls in armor. You cannot claim to support intent of rules, call someone else out ignoring intent of rules, and then ignore intent of rules yourself when the opportunity presents itself and appear to be taking the moral high ground at the same time. The dichotomy is there whether you agree with it or not.

"You are a good character. Yet, you kill helpless Orcs. How can you rationalize that?"

"You too are a good character. Yet, you adventure. In other words, you kill and steal. How can you rationalize that?"

Well, people can rationalize just about anything in the game. It doesn't mean that they are playing the game any better or any worse than anyone else because all of us at times take advantage of the rules. It's the nature of the game, even when we do not see that we are doing that.

You just happened to get called out on a case of the pot calling the kettle black, regardless of you not seeing it that way.

And btw, I have no lesser respect for you for doing that (IMO), but I do call them the way I see them.


Game on!

 

[spunky_mutters]

Caliban,

I think this has all gone a little far, but mostly because those involved all seem to like a good flamewar. I think the rancour all started right after this post:

*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.

Up until then we seemed to be arguing the merits of different interpretations. I know I certainly felt that your claims to always follow the intent of the rules was presumptuous. (i.e. the only intent you can glean is what is written in the letter of the rules, and it will always be your interpretation of the intent (unless you have further clarification from Errata,FAQ or sage), so such a claim is merely saying that you do what you think is best).

I chose not to post then because it seemed like things were getting heated; but now they seem to be boiling so I guess it's time to jump in the water.

You came off as arrogant and dismissive of the various discussions. Whether that was what was intended is always difficult to tell, as tone is something that is hard to gather from messageboards or email. This is why you are seeing people you may have formerly respected taking shots at you. It's easy for simple discussions like this to escalate.

At any rate, I think all the dissection and potshots do nothing to further our discussions of the rules (but I freely recognize my hypocrisy in stopping to join the fray).

 

[Brekki]

Could you stop flaming and comment on the original subject ? I happen to find it interesting

 

[spunky_mutters]

Well, I don't know if the Bracers of Striking form an exception, but as far as Magic Weapon affecting unarmed strike:

From the PHB Corrections:

Page 225 column 2 bottom: change Focus: The weapon. to You can’t cast this spell on a natural
weapon such as an unarmed strike.

There's one for GMW as well.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I'm sorry for the confusion, I didn't realise that the newest version of the errata actually has this correction.

 

[Caliban]

So, because I disagree with your assessment, you no longer have respect for me?

For calling me a hypocrite when I am not, I have less respect.

Yes, but he is choosing to ignore it since there is a different rule in the book that supports his position.

You are choosing to ignore it since your DM changed the intent of the rule.

I don't believe that there is a rule that truly supports his position. The damage from a natural weapon counts as a weapon only for effects that increase weapon damage. The GMW spells does a lot more than increase wepon damage. Should it only increase the damage of the fists, but not the attack bonus, since they don't count as weapons for other types of effects?

Also, the PHB seems to use "weapon" to mean "manufactured weapon" and "natural weapon" to mean "natural weapon." This is consistent throughout the entire PHB.

The GMW spell specifically targets a weapon or projectile, not a creature. If you read the spell description, it makes no reference to natural weapons, and seems to only consider manufactured weapons. To be consistent with the rest of the PHB, the term weapon would only indicate manufactured weapons. Why would this one spell be inconsistent with the usage of the term in the rest of the PHB?


But my pain point is that he said that he agreed that the spell is intended to only affect manufactured weapons and not natural weapons! He knows this, and has chosen to ignore it. He doesn't disagree with the spell, he doesn't think it should be interpreted differently, he just wants to ignore it due to a loophole. If I'm the DM, that would never fly.

In my case, the rule in my game has been changed. I'm not ignoring it, I'm playing it as it is intended to work in the campaign. There is no way you can construe hypocrisy when I am playing it exactly as it is intended to work in the campaign. The entire arguement is specious.

In either case, the original intent of the rule is being ignored, it is merely a slightly different rationalization as to why that is ok that is different here. In his case, because there is a different rule that allows it. In your case, because there is a FAQ rule that allows it.

No. In one case the intent of the rule is being willfully ignored, even though you acknowledge and agree with the intent. I find that reprehensible and will not do that.

In the other, the rule has been clearly and unambigously changed/re-interpeted by the campaign DM, as is their prerogative. As a player, I agree to play by the campaign rules, and will use their ruling even if I would rule it differently in a home game. This goes for things that hurt my character as well as help him. I'm not a martyr, and I'm not stupid. If they say it has to work a certain way, and it helps my character, I will use it if it is reasonable for him to do so. I will not apologize for that or allow myself to manipulated into thinking it is somehow wrong.

In either case, the player can choose to ignore the "house rule" in favor of the original intent.

No. If the first case were indeed a "house rule" as determined by the DM, then I would have no problem with it. It is the fact that they have said they understand the intent, but are going to ignore it until the authors word it better. To me, that is the worst type of ruleslawyering.

In his case, by not casting the spell on natural weapons. In your case, you can choose to not cast scrolls in armor. Instead, you choose to take the moral low ground since your character benefits from casting scrolls in armor.

Bull. I did not take the moral low-ground. I'm playing the game as it was intended, as it was very clearly spelled out by the campaign DM's. The core rules are overriden by the D&D FAQ in Living Greyhawk. I don't know how to make it any more clear. The rule you claim I'm ignoring simply does not exist in LG. It's like saying that I'm taking the moral low ground for ignoring the rules of american football while playing rugby.

I did everything I could to get them to change their ruling, but they stuck with it. Thus I can use it in good conscience, because I am not trying to twist the meaning of the rule or use a loophole.

You cannot claim to support intent of rules, call someone else out ignoring intent of rules, and then ignore intent of rules yourself when the opportunity presents itself and appear to be taking the moral high ground at the same time. The dichotomy is there whether you agree with it or not.

There is no dichotomy. I am not trying to use a vaguely worded section of the rules to ignore the intent of the author, which is exactly what Aggemam is doing. He stated in no uncertain terms that agreed that this was the intent, but until they errata it, he was going to ignore the intent and have it work the opposite of their intent. To me, that is just wrong, on a level that has nothing to do with gaming or rules interpretations.

If he had instead said: "I know what the intent is, but I disagree with it, and am house ruling it so that it works differently in my campaign.", I would disagree with the ruling, but would not have any problem with him running it that way in his campaign, because it is a DM's prerogative to adjust the rules to fit his campaign world. If I played a character in his campaign I would use his ruling without any qualms.

Or he could have said "I disagree that this was the intent of the authors, and am using this interpretation." I would disagree, and might debate the issue with him, but would not feel that he was doing anything inherently wrong (other than ruling it incorrectly ). If I was a player in his game, I would use his ruling if he did not agree to change it, as it is his game and his rules. If I felt strongly enough about the ruling I might choose not to play in his game. In LG I do not feel strongly enough about the ruling to stop playing (although it's getting close with some of the other stuff that is happening in that campaign).


In my case, there is no vaguely worded section, as it has been fully clarified by the campaign DM's and the Sage. That is the way it works in Living Greyhawk, and there is no question that it is the way it is intended to work in Living Greyhawk. None. Therefore there is no moral or ethical reason not to the use the ruling.

You just happened to get called out on a case of the pot calling the kettle black, regardless of you not seeing it that way.

I feel that people have tried to create a superficial parrallel between the two situations that falls apart upon close inspection.

I will not apologize for expressing my views on how some have chosen to handle this spell, as I did express them honestly, if not precisely enough or diplomatically enough for some people.

I will apologize for anything I said that could have be seen as a personal attack on KD. It was said in the heat of the moment and I regret it.