Elven re-roll and the demigod capstone power

[evilbob]

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"?

FYI, I think this is a little rude. I think it's a bit snarky to say things like, "here's something ridiculous: tell me why you believe that."

 

[Nifft]

FYI, I think this is a little rude. I think it's a bit snarky to say things like, "here's something ridiculous: tell me why you believe that."

Well, it's not rude. I think your argument that "second" means "anything after first" is faulty. I'm using an analogy to show why, since we don't seem to agree about the definition of ordinality.

I take it you agree that the situation in the analogy is something you'd view as NOT a serious argument?

Can you see why someone might consider the situation similar to your argument?

I'm phrasing this carefully to try to avoid rudeness, but I'd like to note you may be derailing a rules discussion into "you are rude", which will never be productive.

-- N

 

[mneme]

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).

It isn't. The "recharge happens at the end of your turn" is an -awful- counter-argument, enough so that it's really a proposed house rule. The Demigod 30th level powers starts with "when you have expended your last encounter power..." -- so that's when it happens; right then. It does specify when it happens, so making a ruling based on saying it doesn't is flat-out wrong. (houserule, sure. But good interpretation doesn't contradict the text).

"You must take the second reroll" is, in fact, an significant order of rules lawyering worse than the infinite combo. But it's not an awful literalist ruling.

The "The GM can limit the number of free actions on a turn" rule is clear, but fails on RAI grounds -- that rule is clearly intended to let the GM enforce reality so that you can't pile up free actions that would clearly take more time than your turn; they're free by ones and two, not twenty and thirty (the classic example is talking. Saying a few words, or even doing a quick strategy bit, is free. So is calling for someone's surrender (not with an intimidate roll, just stating willingness to accept it) or engaging in witty banter. OTOH, giving a philisophical speech that takes over half an hour of real time, or going on, and on, and on about strategy in the middle of a fricking battle? Not so much. In this case, however, the free action of rerolling your ranged attack roll is clearly not an action that takes significant time; it occurs in the split second between firing your bow and it hitting, so using this rule is an abuse (if an abuse used to coutneract another abuse).

Probably the best specific argument (but not necessarily the best general one) is that a reroll isn't an attack roll. So you can't reroll it.

The best houserule to deal with this sort of thing is to say that you can only ever reroll a roll once, unless you have a power that -specifically- lets you reroll a reroll.

 

[Nifft]

It isn't. The "recharge happens at the end of your turn" is an -awful- counter-argument, enough so that it's really a proposed house rule. The Demigod 30th level powers starts with "when you have expended your last encounter power..." -- so that's when it happens; right then. It does specify when it happens, so making a ruling based on saying it doesn't is flat-out wrong. (houserule, sure. But good interpretation doesn't contradict the text).

"You must take the second reroll" is, in fact, an significant order of rules lawyering worse than the infinite combo. But it's not an awful literalist ruling.

The "The GM can limit the number of free actions on a turn" rule is clear, but fails on RAI grounds -- that rule is clearly intended to let the GM enforce reality so that you can't pile up free actions that would clearly take more time than your turn; they're free by ones and two, not twenty and thirty (the classic example is talking. Saying a few words, or even doing a quick strategy bit, is free. So is calling for someone's surrender (not with an intimidate roll, just stating willingness to accept it) or engaging in witty banter. OTOH, giving a philisophical speech that takes over half an hour of real time, or going on, and on, and on about strategy in the middle of a fricking battle? Not so much. In this case, however, the free action of rerolling your ranged attack roll is clearly not an action that takes significant time; it occurs in the split second between firing your bow and it hitting, so using this rule is an abuse (if an abuse used to coutneract another abuse).

Probably the best specific argument (but not necessarily the best general one) is that a reroll isn't an attack roll. So you can't reroll it.

The best houserule to deal with this sort of thing is to say that you can only ever reroll a roll once, unless you have a power that -specifically- lets you reroll a reroll.

I don't have enough experience playing with Demigods to say what works best and what works horribly.

Anyway, you forgot one: someone else argues that resolving the Elven Accuracy power means resolving the attack roll that triggered the power, so you'd get Elven Accuracy back immediately, but you would have already resolved the attack -- and thus you could use Elven Accuracy three times if an attack gave you three attack rolls, but never twice on the same attack roll.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Surgoshan]

How's this for a solution? The actual text says "Reroll an attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it's lower."

The infinite part would be either rolling the attack roll again and again and again, in which case only the first one counts, because it's "the second roll".

Others are suggesting that you get to reroll the reroll. But the reroll isn't an attack roll, it's a reroll from elven accuracy so elven accuracy can't be applied to it.

 

[Nifft]

How's this for a solution? The actual text says "Reroll an attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it's lower."

The infinite part would be either rolling the attack roll again and again and again, in which case only the first one counts, because it's "the second roll".

Others are suggesting that you get to reroll the reroll. But the reroll isn't an attack roll, it's a reroll from elven accuracy so elven accuracy can't be applied to it.

Works for me.

Cheers, -- N

 

[filthgrinder]

How's this for a solution? The actual text says "Reroll an attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it's lower."

The infinite part would be either rolling the attack roll again and again and again, in which case only the first one counts, because it's "the second roll".

Others are suggesting that you get to reroll the reroll. But the reroll isn't an attack roll, it's a reroll from elven accuracy so elven accuracy can't be applied to it.

Or to just expand on what the rule actually says, it is written, "USE the second roll". The powers says to re-roll and then use the second role. The Elven Accuracy action isn't completed until you've USED the roll. It wont regen until you have USED the second roll.

You roll the dice and get a 1, before you use that roll as a miss, you take a free action to use Elven accuracy to reroll (as an interupt, since Free Actions can be interrupts). You re-roll another 1. Now you can't re-roll again, because Elven accuracy hasn't finished yet. You know USE the second roll as a miss. The action is completed, and your Elven Accuracy regens. You can't use it again, because your attack has already completed. You have to USE the second roll before you get the power back.

 

[useridunavailable]

We are talking about M:tG, right? Wow, I've never seen such a "stacky" discussion about D&D before...

 

[evilbob]

Can you see why someone might consider the situation similar to your argument?

I do not agree that your straw man proves your point, no.

...I'd like to note you may be derailing a rules discussion into "you are rude", which will never be productive.

That's the second time you've "cautioned" me to defend your behavior.

If you'd like to continue to discuss this I'm happy to do it over PM. I agree that this thread certainly doesn't need any more of our banter.

 

[Nifft]

I do not agree that your straw man proves your point, no.

What is the difference?

I agree that this thread certainly doesn't need any more of our banter.

Good, it's dropped.

Cheers, -- N