Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5219657" data-attributes="member: 51942">In pre-errata PHB, it's says that immunity to one keyword of a power doesn't protect from the power's other effects.  Interpreted over-literally, that's just fine, albeit meaningless: by definition the power has no other effects.  That's missing the forest for the trees, however: clearly, we're aiming to use the rules, not merely the words in which they are written.  Imperfection and incompleteness are inevitable, both in the concept of the rules and in the text.This rule is obviously problematic in that it is not generally specified which part of a power's effect is attributable to which keyword - and obviously that flaw was one they had in mind in the errata.  But even pre-errata, it's possible to do much better (as in much more reasonably likely to make sense) - particularly in terms of damage, which is explicitly labelled with a type.Just because the rules are inconsistent or incomplete in a particular area does not generally mean that all interpretations are thus equal - or that, in particular, a mechanistic interpretation is somehow superior.  Often there's indirect evidence as to the intent, and a player's (DM or otherwise) common sense as to what works - which are much more likely to result in reasonable rulings.The errata that eventually appeared underlines this: that errata is much closer to the "obvious" interpretation that infers effect types for damage based on damage keywords than the pre-errata mechanistic interpretation.The rules are not a computer program.  In human language, common sense, intent and implied context are real and usable - and we can use those to read more accurately - more correctly - than a mechanical, blinkered reader that doesn't see or interpret the context.</blockquote>

Verification