Damage of two types but immunity to one

[mneme]

Markn: This is clear in the current rules. A power that has the poison keyword that does effects (as well as/instead of damage) applies that keyword to all effects that don't say otherwise. And immune(poison), unlike immunity to most damage types, -does- block non-damage effects.

Conclusion: Poison sucks, and isn't worth using up and until Wizards buffs it a lot to make up for the likelyhood that your damage (unless mixed with other types) will be ignored and your effects simply ignored. It's the most common damage type immunity, and effects are blocked as well. The only silver lining is that -if- you see a lot of "don't break this barrel" style challenges, poison's one of the few damage types that never affects objects.

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem is effects don't have keywords incorporated in the text like damage has damage types.

So a power that pushes and deals 1d8 damage has the fear keyword. What would be the fear effect if not the push itself. So immunity fear prevents the push.

But a power that has looks like this, 1d8 damage and push 1 with the fear and charm keywords does what(?) if you have immunity fear? If you follow DS reasoning then it would deal just 1d8 damage b/c immunity to one of the two keywords is enough to stop the effect. OTOH, the two keywords allow more feats/PP features/etc. to apply to the power.

Still the current immunity rules don't make me happy.

Of course, if charm effects didn't include things like forced movement, then you could make the argument that the two keywords could be seperable.

Hell I think it's wrong that immunity to thunder still means thunder effects can push you around, something thunder does OFTEN and is identified with thunder.

Hey, that's that tho.

RAW, a charm and fear power would have its non-damage effects countered by immunity, as per PHB3.

Remember, it's 'Rules as Written' not 'Rules As We'd Like It To Be.' The former is how you adjudicate official stuff, and 'how do the rules work' questions. The latter is how a game with friends is run.

 

[Markn]

Thanks guys.

It makes sense now. I never really dug too deep into this part of the game. We'd always treated immunity like resistance but after reading this thread, and looking at relevant sections in the books, I tend to support DS's view.

 

[DracoSuave]

Markn: This is clear in the current rules. A power that has the poison keyword that does effects (as well as/instead of damage) applies that keyword to all effects that don't say otherwise. And immune(poison), unlike immunity to most damage types, -does- block non-damage effects.

Conclusion: Poison sucks, and isn't worth using up and until Wizards buffs it a lot to make up for the likelyhood that your damage (unless mixed with other types) will be ignored and your effects simply ignored. It's the most common damage type immunity, and effects are blocked as well. The only silver lining is that -if- you see a lot of "don't break this barrel" style challenges, poison's one of the few damage types that never affects objects.

Fortunately, poison's also -really- easy to avoid ever dealing with unless you're an assassin.

No, wait, even if you're an assassin.

The game doesn't really support making poison from the building sense either, so it's not really that big a deal if monsters are immune to it; you generally built yourself around a good damage type.

 

[pemerton]

Let's look at this thing:

'A power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword.'

Using that phrase, we then examine this power:

Caustic Rebuttal DracoSuave Feature Power
Encounter - Acid, Implement, Psionic, Psychic, Fear
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 2d6 + Charisma modifier acid damage, and the target is pushed 3 spaces. The target is slowed (save ends)
Aftereffect: 2d6 + Charisma modifier psychic damage.

Alright. That's a cluster%%%% of different effects, and so it makes a good example.

Now, does this power deal acid damage? Yes. Therefore, VERBATIM ACCORDING TO THE RULES, the POWER is an acid effect.

Which already makes no literal sense, as powers are not effects - they have effects.

Is the aftereffect part of that power? Yes. Is the aftereffect part of an acid effect? Yes. Therefore, the aftereffect IS an acid effect.

You are now deploying a logic of parts-and-wholes applied to effects which, as far as I can see, is not expressly part of the rules - the rules never talk about some effects being parts of other effects, rather they talk about powers having effects - and is therefore something you are introducing by implication. I don't accept the implication is necessarily there.

A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways.

This here says that a power could have the poison keyword, and that keyword could be dealing with all sorts of different things. BUT, it's a poison effect. The POWER is a POISON effect.

That means that effects of that power are themselves poison effects.

Again, you are using the notion of "the effects of an effect" which is already going beyond the express language of the rules.

I don't see how 'But the poison keyword indicates it's a poison effect' means 'it is not a poison effect except for the parts that are likely poison' as opposed to 'the keyword means its a poison effect.'

Well, the word "heavy", predicated of a car, indicates that a car is a heavy object. The word "wheeled", predicated of a car, indicates that a car is a wheeled vehicle. This is just like the word "poison", used of a power, indicates that the power is a poison effect. It doesn't follow that every part of the power is a poison effect, just as it doesn't follow that every part of a car is heavy - the hubcaps are not - or wheeled - the petrol tank is not.

To generalise - the logic of parts-and-wholes that you are deploying is not the only one available. An alternative logic, which (in my view) is closer to ordinary English usage, allows that a whole can be described as an X-ish thing even if only some parts of the whole exhibit X-ness. Furthermore, I think the references on PHB p 55, and in the PHB3 errata, to individual effects of powers (such as damage, stunnning, etc), suggest that it is this alternative logic which the designers had in mind.

As for the caveat that immunity == infinite resistance, that is no where mentioned nor implied in the rules.

<snip>

In fact, here's a misconception you need to clear up swiftly.

Customer Service is NOT WIZARDS OF THE COAST.

I don't see how this is relevant to my post - I didn't make either claim. Although it seems to me that Customer Service probably is WotC, unless there's some sort of outsourcing arrangement that I'm not familiar with.

Remember, it's 'Rules as Written' not 'Rules As We'd Like It To Be.' The former is how you adjudicate official stuff, and 'how do the rules work' questions. The latter is how a game with friends is run.

I think that you are being overly sanguine about identifying the rules as written. As I've pointed out, your own analysis depends upon the imputation of a logic of parts-and-wholes that is not an express part of the rules text.

My take on the issue of "rules as written" is this: D&D designers do not have the same degree of training or institutional support as do the authors of legislation and other legal instruments. It's therefore natural that D&D rules will, on occasion, be at least as difficult to interpret, and as dependent for their interpretation upon implications and imputations, as are statutes, contracts, wills and so on. In these cases of legal interpretation, it is impossible to separate the question of "the law as written" from questions of intention, desirability of outcomes, consistency with common sense and so on. The same is true for the rules of D&D, only moreso, given that the sorts of considerations that tell against a liberal approach to legal interpretation (eg principles of legislative supremacy, the rule of law etc) are not operative in the context of a game, where there is really very little at stake and the possibility of subsequent correction is always there.

I think that verisimilitude (eg pre-errata immunity to fire doesn't stop you being zapped by the radiant damage of blazing starfall) and fun (a more elaborate power with more keywords doesn't become more liable to being blocked by resistances and immunities) are better served by implying my logic of parts-and-wholes rather than yours. And while both are consistent with the express rules text, as I already said I think mine fits better with the examples and the errata, which parse powers into their various constituent effects.

I think it's wrong that immunity to thunder still means thunder effects can push you around, something thunder does OFTEN and is identified with thunder.

Hey, that's that tho.

This is a separate point, I think. The solution would be to make "thunder" an effect type as well as a damage type (like poison). Another similar oddity would be creatures with icewalk still being vulnerable to being knocked prone by powers like Icy Terrain. From the design point of view, presumably at a certain point verisimilitude is compromised in the interests of simplicity.

 

[Solvarn]

Adding some reference info here for folks:

Page 215 of PHB III under heading Power Source: arcane, divine, martial, primal, psionic, and shadow.

Page 215 of PHB III under heading Damage Type: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, and thunder.

Page 216 of PHB III under heading Effect Type: Augmentable, Charm, Conjuration, Fear, Full Discipline, Healing, Illusion, Poison, Polymorph, Reliable, Runic, Sleep, Stance, Summoning, Teleportation, Zone.

Missing Effects from PHB III found in PHB II page 219: Beast, Beast Form, Invigorating, Rage, Rattling, and Spirit.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think that verisimilitude (eg pre-errata immunity to fire doesn't stop you being zapped by the radiant damage of blazing starfall)

Actually, pre-errata, even pre-errata to how multiple damage types work, again, immunity to fire made you immune to the entire power, because the entire power was a fire effect.

I don't know how else to say it. I understand how you have trouble getting the 'parts of a power share the traits of the entire power' and that 'a seperation should occur' but that doesn't happen and is expressly what it does not say in the rules. Keywords cover the entire power's effect. Every part of a power has those keywords. And there are powers where keywords only apply to part of a power; those powers have and always have identified those parts and said 'This is a _____ effect.'

If there was a seperation of effects, the PHB3 rule wouldn't be necessary. Even without that, there are instances where the 'immunity to one part of the power does not render you immune to the other parts of the power.' Case in point: Immunity to Forced movement renders you immune to forced movement, but any other effect takes place.

Regardless, you cannot start a 'This is how the rules are' argument and then go 'But what the rules say make no literal sense.' You're not arguing rules as written at that point, you're choosing to ignore what the rules say and make up your own interpretation.

As I said, there's Rules as Written, and there's Rules as You'd Like Them To Be. Your interpretation works well at your table, and I find no fault in it, but it is NOT what the rules -say-. And when your first act of interpretation is to ignore the entire rule, the ONLY existance of the pertinent rule in play, then you've already abandoned the idea of discussion what the 'Rules as Written' are.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, pre-errata, even pre-errata to how multiple damage types work, again, immunity to fire made you immune to the entire power, because the entire power was a fire effect.

My point was that this is at odds with verisimilitude, and hence that a desire for verisimilitude tells against your reading of the (pre-errata) text.

I don't know how else to say it. I understand how you have trouble getting the 'parts of a power share the traits of the entire power' and that 'a seperation should occur' but that doesn't happen and is expressly what it does not say in the rules.

I don't have trouble getting it - I just don't agree with it. I agree that the rules don't expressly talk about the separation I favour. But they don't expressly talk about the "effects of effects" that you favour either. Both are implications that we are drawing from poorly-written rules. All I'm saying is that my implication is as consistent with the express words as yours, and I also think it fits better with the examples in the rules, and I think it is better for verisimilitude and for fun. I therefore favour my implication. I have no objection at all to you using your implication, but I do object a little bit to you describing it as "rules as written" when it is not expressly there in the rules.

Keywords cover the entire power's effect. Every part of a power has those keywords.

Nowhere is this expressly stated. The rules don't talk about "entire powers". They don't use adverbs like "every" or "all". You are drawing an implication. I don't at all object to you doing so - some implication has to be drawn, given that the express wording of the rules is deficient. But I think a different implication is the better one to draw.

And there are powers where keywords only apply to part of a power; those powers have and always have identified those parts and said 'This is a _____ effect.'

You've got better knowledge than me of a wider range of powers, and none of these examples are springing into my mind at present. Are you able to tell me where to find a couple? (I don't have DDI, but have all PHBs and all Power books except Primal.)

If there was a seperation of effects, the PHB3 rule wouldn't be necessary.

I don't think this is right - the PHB3 rule clarifies that the non-damage effects of powers with no keyword but a damage keyword are still suffered by creatures with immunity to that keyword. Or to put it another way, the PHB3 rule clarifies that Immunity: X - where X is a damage keyword - is immmunity to damage only, and not to the other effects of those powers. Or to put it yet another way, which I don't think you will like because it is expressed in a way that favours my implication over yours, it clarifies that the non-damaging parts of a power are not governed by the damage keywords that characterise that power.

You posted upthread that without the PHB3 wording on immunities, the rule on PHB p 55 that "immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects" would only come into effect very rarely (when there was a discrete sub-effect of a power of the sort that you mentioned also in the post I'm replying to). One implication of my view is that the PHB3 wording is clarifying in order to achieve what was already there, rather than changing as dramatically as you think that it has.

Even without that, there are instances where the 'immunity to one part of the power does not render you immune to the other parts of the power.' Case in point: Immunity to Forced movement renders you immune to forced movement, but any other effect takes place.

I think these examples are a bit orthogonal, though, because they don't force us to have to make sense of the keyword rules.

Regardless, you cannot start a 'This is how the rules are' argument and then go 'But what the rules say make no literal sense.' You're not arguing rules as written at that point, you're choosing to ignore what the rules say and make up your own interpretation.

I half agree with this and half disagree. The rules literally make no sense, because they simultaneously assert that powers are effects and that powers have effects - ie the rules are confused as to the part-whole logic of powers and effects. You have your preferred approach to constructing a coherent logic of parts and wholes here. I have mine. We are both engaged in something more than just reading the literal text. We are both drawing implications and arguing for them. If you like, we are engaged in constructive interpretation of the rules text. It doesn't follow from this that either of us is ignoring the text. Obviously, you're not. Given that my posts refer extensively to the text, neither am I.

As to the question of whether, from a claim that the rules text is literally nonsensical, I can nevertheless reach a conclusion about what the rules are - I think this is quite possible. I know from my non-gaming experience that this can be done with legal texts, and with philosophical texts, so I've got no doubt that it can be done with gaming texts. Interpretation of a flawed text need not be just making it up. It can, at least on some occasions (depending on the nature of the flaw(s) and the other evidence available to support the interpretation) be working out what the text has "really" said. We do it all the time in ordinary conversation, correcting for the solecisms and mis-statements of our interlocutors. It can be done with written texts also.

As I said, there's Rules as Written, and there's Rules as You'd Like Them To Be.

And as I said, I think you're overly sanguine about this. Professional legal drafters are far better trained, far better paid, and have far better institutional support - precedents, judicial decisions, organisational memories, centuries of practice to draw upon - than do RPG designers, and they still manage to produce literally nonsensical texts a good portion of the time. It's no surprise that the D&D designers have done so as well. In these circumstances, there is no alternative but to try to extract some coherent interpretation out of the literally nonsensical text. Even in legal interpretation, one relevant consideration here can be what we would like the rules to be. In game rules interpretation, this consideration should be paramount, given that all the other factors that constrain this consideration in the legal context are not in play - ie there is nothing at stake but fun.

Your interpretation works well at your table, and I find no fault in it, but it is NOT what the rules -say-.

I agree. But your interpretation is not what the rules say either. We are both drawing implications. And I think my implication fits better with the rules text overall (subject to the examples of the powers with discrete sub-effects - the wording of these, depending on what it is, might persuade me that you're right).

And when your first act of interpretation is to ignore the entire rule

When did I do that? I focused on the rules text pretty closely, including the examples it includes and the phrase "immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects".

the ONLY existance of the pertinent rule in play

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this phrase.

then you've already abandoned the idea of discussion what the 'Rules as Written' are.

Well, I've already made it pretty clear that in my view the rules as literally written are not coherent, because they have a confused logic of parts and wholes. But I've also made it pretty clear that I think better or worse interpretations can be argued for. And I also hope I've made it pretty clear that I think it is unrealistic to hold rules drafted by game designers to standards of literal precision that even the best legal drafters are not always able to meet.

 

[DracoSuave]

My point was that this is at odds with verisimilitude, and hence that a desire for verisimilitude tells against your reading of the (pre-errata) text.

Versimiliatude is subjective.

I find it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief any.

I don't have trouble getting it - I just don't agree with it. I agree that the rules don't expressly talk about the separation I favour. But they don't expressly talk about the "effects of effects" that you favour either. Both are implications that we are drawing from poorly-written rules. All I'm saying is that my implication is as consistent with the express words as yours, and I also think it fits better with the examples in the rules, and I think it is better for verisimilitude and for fun. I therefore favour my implication. I have no objection at all to you using your implication, but I do object a little bit to you describing it as "rules as written" when it is not expressly there in the rules.

You can object to 'a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword.' all you like. However, it is rules as written. It is irrational to claim a verbatim copy/paste of the actual pertinent text is not rules as written. It is rules. It is written.

Nowhere is this expressly stated.

Page 55, PHB

The rules don't talk about "entire powers". They don't use adverbs like "every" or "all".

It twice in one paragraph refers to powers with a keyword as BEING effects of that keyword. It never once refers to powers with a keyword NOT being effects of that keyword, across the thousands of pages of text for the game being presented.

So, taking the direct evidence in hand, when 100% of all the evidence says 'Powers with a keyword are effects of that keyword' and 0% of all the evidence says 'powers with a keyword have effects that are not of that keyword', there is only one rational conclusion.

You are drawing an implication. I don't at all object to you doing so - some implication has to be drawn, given that the express wording of the rules is deficient. But I think a different implication is the better one to draw.

This is subjective based on how you feel things should be. This is not a rational argument based on what the rules say things are.

You've got better knowledge than me of a wider range of powers, and none of these examples are springing into my mind at present. Are you able to tell me where to find a couple? (I don't have DDI, but have all PHBs and all Power books except Primal.)

Off the top of my head:

Terrifying Impact Fighter Attack 9
Daily - Invigorating, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action - Melee weapon
Primary Target: One creature
Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding an axe, a hammer, or a mace, the primary attack deals extra damage equal to our Constitution modifier.
Effect: Make a secondary attack, which has the fear keyword.
Secondary Target: Each enemy within 3 squares of the primary target.
Secondary Attack: Constitution vs. Will
Hit: You push the target 1 square.

This is off the top of my head. Martial Power, by the way.

I don't think this is right - the PHB3 rule clarifies that the non-damage effects of powers with no keyword but a damage keyword are still suffered by creatures with immunity to that keyword.

Not disputing this. In fact, that's part of my point.

Or to put it another way, the PHB3 rule clarifies that Immunity: X - where X is a damage keyword - is immmunity to damage only, and not to the other effects of those powers.

Agreed. No dispute.

Or to put it yet another way, which I don't think you will like because it is expressed in a way that favours my implication over yours, it clarifies that the non-damaging parts of a power are not governed by the damage keywords that characterise that power.

This is not a logical extension of the above.

If the above were true, then a rewriting of the rules would not be necessary. Immunity would not be required to be re-written to clarify on how it interacts with different game elements, it would simply be as it is. Instead, because effects of a power have its keywords the rule for immunity had to be rewritten so that, as an example, immunity to fire would not protect you against pushes, which with a fire power, are fire effects.

Other game elements STILL work normally as tho the entirety of the power shares that keyword. A dwarf's save bonus vs. poison still works against non-poison ongoing damage from poison powers. A halfling's save bonus vs. fear still works against fear powers that have ongoing damage as saves but not ongoing effects.

You posted upthread that without the PHB3 wording on immunities, the rule on PHB p 55 that "immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects" would only come into effect very rarely (when there was a discrete sub-effect of a power of the sort that you mentioned also in the post I'm replying to). One implication of my view is that the PHB3 wording is clarifying in order to achieve what was already there, rather than changing as dramatically as you think that it has.

Sadly, precident in Fourth edition rules changing tends towards the fact that the rules DO change, and has changed.

See:

Stealth.
Weapon Focus.
Expertise.
Anything having to do with Tieflings.
Conjurations
Teleportation.
Usage descriptors (at-will) are no longer keywords.

I think these examples are a bit orthogonal, though, because they don't force us to have to make sense of the keyword rules.

By strict RAW, you don't have to make sense of them, never had to. It's not hard to envision, for example, that a power that deals psychic damage and has the fear keyword, might, actually, in fact, incorporate some fear hoodoo in the psychic portion of the power. Oh god, scaring someone into taking damage?

Or that somehow, that light can incorporate fear magic into radiant magic to make a warlock at-will no one ever takes.

We're dealing with magic effects here, I don't see how you can say 'versimilitude says the effects are distinct and cannot be mixed' when I think ', it's magic, how hard is it to envision cold and fire mixing into one thing? Even science can do -that-.' It's not science tho. It's magic. And really, is it hard to envision using fear magic and it not making the -entire spell- have traces and elements of fear pervading it?

In fact, is that not a fantasy trope?

I half agree with this and half disagree. The rules literally make no sense, because they simultaneously assert that powers are effects and that powers have effects - ie the rules are confused as to the part-whole logic of powers and effects. You have your preferred approach to constructing a coherent logic of parts and wholes here. I have mine. We are both engaged in something more than just reading the literal text. We are both drawing implications and arguing for them. If you like, we are engaged in constructive interpretation of the rules text. It doesn't follow from this that either of us is ignoring the text. Obviously, you're not. Given that my posts refer extensively to the text, neither am I

Well, like I said, when you disavow the argument 'an acid power is an acid effect' by saying powers aren't effects, you're choosing to ignore the rules text as it is stated.

And given we don't have a lot of rules text to go one, you've pretty much limitted yourself to... um... nothing. Thus inferences are all you can have.

As to the question of whether, from a claim that the rules text is literally nonsensical, I can nevertheless reach a conclusion about what the rules are - I think this is quite possible. I know from my non-gaming experience that this can be done with legal texts, and with philosophical texts, so I've got no doubt that it can be done with gaming texts.

Sure. I offer a different take on the situation.

Interpretation of a flawed text need not be just making it up. It can, at least on some occasions (depending on the nature of the flaw(s) and the other evidence available to support the interpretation) be working out what the text has "really" said. We do it all the time in ordinary conversation, correcting for the solecisms and mis-statements of our interlocutors. It can be done with written texts also.

Again, I offer a completely different take.

And as I said, I think you're overly sanguine about this. Professional legal drafters are far better trained, far better paid, and have far better institutional support - precedents, judicial decisions, organisational memories, centuries of practice to draw upon - than do RPG designers, and they still manage to produce literally nonsensical texts a good portion of the time. It's no surprise that the D&D designers have done so as well. In these circumstances, there is no alternative but to try to extract some coherent interpretation out of the literally nonsensical text. Even in legal interpretation, one relevant consideration here can be what we would like the rules to be. In game rules interpretation, this consideration should be paramount, given that all the other factors that constrain this consideration in the legal context are not in play - ie there is nothing at stake but fun.

Firstly:

Saying something is nonsensical does not actually make it nonsensical. It IS sensical, it does have a meaning, and you can interpret it thusly.

However, more importantly, as a lot of rules-interpretation tends to be, it's holding the PHB1 rules text to the standard of presentation of PHB3. It's taking what is NOT sloppy rules text by PHB1 templating, and saying it is because it would be stated differently in PHB3 terms.

That's not a road I'm going to travel. Instead, I take the text on its own merits (foo powers -are- foo effects) and take that to mean that every bit of that power is a foo effect, and that with zero text to the contrary, and text that 'clarifies' how things work because the previous rules interaction WAS broken.

The problem in that old interaction wasn't the foo powers = foo effects rule. That rule is, in fact, core to how -many- D&D4e interactions work. That rule -cannot change- without breaking the game in many large and small ways. Instead, they fixed the rule that -was- the problem; immunity wasn't doing what they wanted it to do, because it was working with a completely different and incorrect interpretation of the rules.

This is not unusual for 4th edition design, where a rule gets fixed because it's found to not work. Another example, relating to keywords.

At-will, Encounter, and Daily used to be keywords in PHB1. Now they aren't.

This is because of a rule that says if you use a power of an item with a power, the power gets the item power's keywords.

Now, imagine a Flaming Sword making all your powers at-will.

Yeah.

Stuff changes in this game ALL the time.

I agree. But your interpretation is not what the rules say either. We are both drawing implications. And I think my implication fits better with the rules text overall (subject to the examples of the powers with discrete sub-effects - the wording of these, depending on what it is, might persuade me that you're right).

I'm taking what it says literally. It says (to paraphrase) 'A poison power can do many things, but it's a poison effect.' Before it, it says that 'an acid power is an acid effect.' It's not rocket surgery here. I don't see how one can then take a 180 and go 'But the effects of that power might not be acid effects, or poison effects.'

Damn it, the rules just said they were!

When did I do that? I focused on the rules text pretty closely, including the examples it includes and the phrase "immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects".

Immunity to domination doesn't protect you against non-domination parts of the power. This phrase does and always works fine. It just doesn't apply as often as you'd think.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this phrase.

I mean you can't ignore the phrase 'an acid power is an acid effect' because that section, where it's claiming powers are effects, is the entirety of all rules text on the matter. Disregard it, and you have zero rules text on the matter, in all of how many books?

In otherwords, you can complain that the wording is being inelegant, but you still gotta use it cause it's all the wording we got.

Well, I've already made it pretty clear that in my view the rules as literally written are not coherent, because they have a confused logic of parts and wholes.

It's written as a roleplaying text, not as a guide to a tournament game.

But I've also made it pretty clear that I think better or worse interpretations can be argued for. And I also hope I've made it pretty clear that I think it is unrealistic to hold rules drafted by game designers to standards of literal precision that even the best legal drafters are not always able to meet.

I however, do hold to the point that, after three years, they haven't put an iota of text to counter the 'powers with foo keywords are foo effects' rule, and so it is cogent to believe that such a rule is how it is. It's too fundamental to the game to simply ignore. It's been around too long to not be changed if it didn't work that way.

And given the errata train arollin' down the tracks, they're certainly not afraid to 'clear things up.'

 

[CovertOps]

On a total side note I have to say the thing that pisses me off most about this is that they have taken a PHB rule and re-written it.


[soapbox]
This doesn't bother me so much as I'm happy with most of the errata so far, but the presentation of said changes in a brand new book (PHB3) instead of actual errata to the original rule forcing us to "buy" rules updates is outrageous in the extreme.
[/soapbox]

If this was actual "new" content/rules then so be it. You could live without said new rule as it obviously applied to something in the new book itself (for example the class that has only at-will powers). Having to check multiple different books/sources is poor organization (I know for sure that we have PHB, PHB3, MM, MM2, MM3) unless of course the definition is just presented for convience and should be ignored as not rules text.