Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus_Jerel" data-source="post: 142284" data-attributes="member: 3940">Saladrex - I am not arguing the fact that it was an intentional hole, just that it does indeed exist.-----------------as far as a certain flamer - he's done this before in the timestop thread - and a few others.  Reasoned thought can be complicated - too complicated sometimes for individuals who have to make certain remarks about "beating you know what"...Childish one - either go away or shut thy mouth and listen.------------------There is a philisophical way of reading "rules" called textualism.  Those of you who are in the legal profession and read these boards - understand exactly what I mean.  In layman's terms it eliminates the possibility of one word having more than one meaning.  In other words - no synonyms.  The fact that the flamer admits that there ARE two possible interpretations is grounds sufficent for textualist theory to work.Under the core rules - that one little word may in that phrase is an excuse for the GM to allow Su abilites to work inside an AMF.  IMHO - it is unbalancing to do so, and goes against the nature of "supressing" magical effects within an AMF.  The fact that the excuse is there - is causus belli.  Characters don't usually get damage reduction as a supernatural ability; for that matter they don't get many supernatural abilities in the first place.I can name several spells that are just as abuseable because of a phrase or two; if not more so than - AMF.  Others, merely require a slight inference to get how they can be abused:magic missile(no attack roll, no save, at range - you take damage; it shouldn't matter if there is but one point taken this way - the spell is cheezy munchkin right there)silence; interrupt spellcasting - no save possiblefeeblemind (the most grossly unbalaincing spell in the 3e core)harm... could set a deity's hp to 1d4 - if He failed his save... And unless you are a greater deity - you DO still make them.time stop: because people think you can use this spell to do that which you cannot.meteor swarm: there be a way to deny someone a save here... every single time.limited wishwishmiracleThe last three - are very "interpretive" spells... but this is just a fast list of "problem spells" under textual theory.  Not to mention the fact that you have people who just don't "get" one rule or another... or insist any of the following is true:"My interpretation is the only interpretation - so **** you..."."The GM is always wise, right, and correct - no matter what""The story always takes precedence over the rules"I have seen too many GM's try to make a decision without thinking it thru completely; and it wind up blowing up in their face.  I did this in a theoretical concept mode in the "I heard there was some fix to time stop" thread.To keep it short and sweet - certain persons felt that the "dealing gobs and gobs of damage" possible under a time stop spell was "unbalancing" and were looking to "fix" the situation.  Bluntly - they couldn't do this; because that is exactly what time stop was intended to do.  In the same respect; people are doing the exact same thing to the AMF spell.People are crying "broken" or "unbalancing" at the very concept, thought, or idea that a caster could stand within and send out spells from inside an AMF.  The reason damage reduction IS a su ability - unlike all other defences - is because of AMF - yes.  So yes, it is the proper balancing decision to say that DR doesn't work in an AMF.  Alas, it is not the only POSSIBLE interpretation of the words chosen to write the spell description.That is when GM's are called upon to change the wording of the spell or the abilites to follow the intent of the rule - and not the letter.  Some choose the former.  I took the latter route - as it solved a couple of other problems as well.</blockquote>

Verification