Elven re-roll and the demigod capstone power

[Nifft]

I disagree with your interpretation. I think "second roll" is relative to the situation, not a total overall descriptor. I don't believe that this power was written to negate that specific abuse. Therefore, the "second roll" is being compared to your "first roll," which is always the roll you made before this one and wish to change, thus triggering your encounter power.

That could be a valid interpretation under normal circumstances, but I can't think of a whole lot of normal circumstances which would justify multiple uses of the same racial Encounter power.

What non-abusive situation are you imagining?

Cheers, -- N

 

[evilbob]

Using the power normally.

 

[Nifft]

Using the power normally.

Using this Encounter power normally = there is no roll after the 2nd, so there is no problem or conflict.

If you see one, elaborate.

Cheers, -- N

 

[evilbob]

I'll try saying it again differently:

It's your "second" roll: not 2nd sequentially, but the second roll given to you thanks to your use of this power.

That's the normal, non-abusive way to use it. It's only when you come up with the idea that the 2nd roll isn't the final roll (abusive) that "2nd" meaning "sequentially" even comes into play.

 

[Nifft]

I'll try saying it again differently:

It's your "second" roll: not 2nd sequentially, but the second roll given to you thanks to your use of this power.

That's the normal, non-abusive way to use it. It's only when you come up with the idea that the 2nd roll isn't the final roll (abusive) that "2nd" meaning "sequentially" even comes into play.

"Second sequentially" is identical to "second roll given to you thanks to this power". It's hard to get away from explicit numerical ordering while using the words "second roll".

You might mean that the rule intended to say: "use the result of your reroll, even if it's lower" instead of what it actually says ("use the second roll, even if it's lower")... but, of course, that's not what it says.

In this situation, where using an obnoxiously literal reading will counteract an obnoxious abuse, I'm fine with using fire to fight fire.

Cheers, -- N

 

[vagabundo]

Holy Moses!!

Anyway, from the thread it seems you could limit it in two way.

First - Free Actions: The description here allows you to limit the amount of free actions a player is allowed to take on their turn or outside of it. Ruling that they can only take elven accuracy enc power once per turn or maybe once per action seems totally RAW to me.

If the player used an action point I'd probably allow them to apply the enc power again to that roll.

Second - Rules laywery: It does mention that you have to keep the second roll, if a player insisted that they should be able to take as many rolls as they like, then you should insist that each roll is sequential and so they have to take the second roll anyway.

I prefer the first, but the second interpetation might work for some difficult min-maxers^^H players...

 

[evilbob]

"Second sequentially" is identical to "second roll given to you thanks to this power".

Well, no, it's not, if you're talking about more than one use of the power. I explained that above. It could be relative to the single use of the power, and not the total power usage over multiple occurrences. I, for one, believe that this is what is meant.

You might mean that the rule intended to say: "use the result of your reroll, even if it's lower" instead of what it actually says ("use the second roll, even if it's lower")... but, of course, that's not what it says.

Wow, this seems a bit hostile for someone who just disagrees with you. Look, English is a very complex language with lots of subtleties and words that mean different things. You are saying that "second" ONLY means "second" when talking about the total number of uses of the power over multiple iterations. I am saying "second" means "second relative to one use of the power," which I feel is how it was intended. Neither of us are wrong; we can't be. Please try to calm it down.

 

[Nifft]

Well, no, it's not, if you're talking about more than one use of the power. I explained that above. It could be relative to the single use of the power, and not the total power usage over multiple occurrences. I, for one, believe that this is what is meant.

It's impossible to get more than one use of the power in a row, unless you are using the infinite-loop abuse that I'm trying to counter.

So I ask again: is there any rational, sane, non-infinite-loop case where the third re-roll need be distinguished from the second?

Wow, this seems a bit hostile for someone who just disagrees with you. Look, English is a very complex language with lots of subtleties and words that mean different things. You are saying that "second" ONLY means "second" when talking about the total number of uses of the power over multiple iterations. I am saying "second" means "second relative to one use of the power," which I feel is how it was intended. Neither of us are wrong; we can't be. Please try to calm it down.

That's not hostile. I'm addressing your arguments. (You just started talking about my mental state, which could be taken as hostile, but whatever. Let's move on.)

I'm absolutely serious that "second roll" implies an ordering, and that "second roll" applied to a sequence of rolls is not always the same as "last roll".

If someone told me he came in second in a marathon (relative to the guy immediately in front of him), I'd think he was making a joke. Can you honestly say you'd take his argument seriously?

Cheers, -- N

 

[evilbob]

It's impossible to get more than one use of the power in a row, unless you are using the infinite-loop abuse that I'm trying to counter.

Sure.

So I ask again: is there any rational, sane, non-infinite-loop case where the third re-roll need be distinguished from the second?

No - which is why I don't believe it's talking about "2nd" meaning "sequentially and needing to be distinguished from the 3rd." There's no need to distinguish it from "3rd" - unless you're abusing the power - so why would it have meant that?

I understand you're trying to say, "here's a way to interpret the rule to counter this abuse." And that's fine. What I'm saying is, "that would not counter the abuse to me." I think there are better ways (like the "DMs can say how many free actions you get" idea) without interpreting the rule in this manner.

That's not hostile.

Actually, quite a few of your responses in this thread seem a bit unnecessarily aggravated to me. I don't think that's calling into question any part of your mental state; that's simply making an observation about the level of rudeness I believe is found in some of your posts. And I was just saying that I don't believe that level is necessary.

 

[Nifft]

No - which is why I don't believe it's talking about "2nd" meaning "sequentially and needing to be distinguished from the 3rd." There's no need to distinguish it from "3rd" - unless you're abusing the power - so why would it have meant that?

I understand you're trying to say, "here's a way to interpret the rule to counter this abuse." And that's fine. What I'm saying is, "that would not counter the abuse to me." I think there are better ways (like the "DMs can say how many free actions you get" idea) without interpreting the rule in this manner.

Well, I did already say it's a rules-lawyer way to counter a rules-lawyer argument, and I've given what I consider a better interpretation counter-argument (which is that the Demigod encounter power recharge happens at the end of your turn). So you're focusing on attacking this tactic of your own volition.

And I'd like an answer to the question about the marathon runner: would you take him seriously? Would you tell your friends, "this guy finished the Boston marathon second"?

Actually, quite a few of your responses in this thread seem a bit unnecessarily aggravated to me. I don't think that's calling into question any part of your mental state; that's simply making an observation about the level of rudeness I believe is found in some of your posts. And I was just saying that I don't believe that level is necessary.

I was a little rude to Zurai, but less rude than I felt he was in the message to which I replied.

Otherwise, not seeing it.

-- N