Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6871494">Probably, but I don't recall the question.&nbsp; I tend to only respond to posts that I find interesting or at least un-repetitive.&nbsp; If you would like to re-submit I will consider it.I'm going to re-order some of your post to respond to things in a more logical order.The former, of course.&nbsp; But these two things aren't parallel.&nbsp; Technical and legal documents tend not to be liberally sprinkled with colorful, evocative prose.&nbsp; Furthermore, legal definitions have specific, unambiguous language, in the form of a 1:1 correlations between terms and definitions.&nbsp; For example, a contract might read &quot;John T. Smith, of 101 Pedantic Drive, herein referred to as The Client&quot; or something like that.&nbsp; So, does the &quot;definition&quot; of the Int score meet this criterion?&nbsp; Here's one example:So right there we have four separate things that Intelligence applies to.&nbsp; That doesn't rule it out as a definition.&nbsp; Our legal contract could say something like: &quot;John T. Smith of 101 Pedantic Lane, Wiley E. Coyote of Eureka, Nevada, and/or Ulysses S. Grant of Grant's Tomb, herein referred to as The Client.&quot;Is that an appropriate parallel?&nbsp; Well, we have to ask&nbsp; if there are there other things Int could refer to in the game.&nbsp; What about pattern recognition?&nbsp; Innate mathematical talent?&nbsp; Musical talent?&nbsp; Ability to visualize in 3D?&nbsp; Ability to estimate distances and volumes?&nbsp; How about inductive reasoning?&nbsp;&nbsp; I hope you will agree that these things are also covered by Int, even though they're not explicitly listed.&nbsp; Which means that it's not a definition but merely a list of illustrative examples.&nbsp; Those are two very, very different things.But maybe I am assuming too much.&nbsp; Maybe you do want to rule that Intelligence only applies to the items explicitly listed, and that if, for example, 3D visualization is required it's....well it's not listed on Wisdom or Charisma, either, so I guess you don't get any modifiers.&nbsp; I think that would be a little screwy, but if you do believe that then perhaps the text does meet the requirements for a formal definition...except that we then run into the problem that in the various places these references appear, the list changes.&nbsp; For example, the list above from the SRD is not the same as the list that appears at the equivalent location in the PHB.&nbsp; And elsewhere in the SRD we find: &quot;Intelligence,&nbsp; &nbsp; measuring&nbsp; &nbsp; reasoning&nbsp; &nbsp; and&nbsp; &nbsp; memory&quot;.&nbsp; So if this is technically a definition it's not even consistent.To translate this to our legal contract, we would have something like &quot;The Client, which could be Wiley E. Coyote, John T. Smith, Ulysses S. Grant, or somebody like that&quot;, which wouldn't be very useful.&nbsp; Especially if elsewhere in the contract it said &quot;Mr. Coyote and U. Grant.&quot; and in another place it added a name.Ok, I think I've thoroughly covered the shortcomings of the &quot;legal contract&quot; analogue.But I could see how you might still say this language is a &quot;rule&quot;, even if it only provides example uses and not an exhaustive list.&nbsp; If that's the case, what's the &quot;rule&quot; actually saying?&nbsp; Effectively: &quot;When skills of this type are required, the Int score is the relevant ability that should be applied.&quot;&nbsp; And what does that mean?&nbsp; The rules are pretty clear: it means that when you perform a related task that depends on that ability, roll a d20 and apply the modifier from that ability to that result.&nbsp;And that's exactly what Eloelle is doing.&nbsp; What the rules do NOT say is how you need to narrate the results.Q.E.F.D.Onward to the Sorcerer example:Agreed.&nbsp; The deck could count as the Arcane focus (covering the material component), the throwing of the card is the somatic component, and the Sorcerer can say whatever he wants.This does raise issues if, for example, he loses his deck of cards.&nbsp; As DM I personally would treat the deck as &quot;plot proof&quot;, but even if the Sorcerer somehow lost the deck my only expectation would be that he narrates a solution.&nbsp; &quot;I flay the slain enemies and draw new cards on pieces of their skin, using my own blood as ink.&quot;&nbsp; Or whatever.Ok, next couple sections aren't terribly interesting.&nbsp; Then we get to your response to my question about the images of angelic wings on Devotion Paladins and whether not having them is &quot;breaking the rules&quot;.&nbsp; You wrote:Soooo...what category is &quot;not BTB&quot;?&nbsp; Is that following the rules, or breaking the rules (a.k.a. &quot;house ruling&quot;)?&nbsp; Because &quot;within the rules&quot; is pretty much a binary state, true or false.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't be halfway on this one.The book is quite clear and explicit (even more than in the Int definitions): devotion paladins put wings on their helm or shield (and nowhere else, &quot;BTB&quot;).&nbsp; Max, Danny...I'd ask you the same question: is the paladin who doesn't follow this edict house ruling?&nbsp; Does he need permission from his DM?&nbsp; Max, is it a &quot;mechanical&quot; change to exclude the wings?(By the way, this isn't an edge case.&nbsp; I found the angelic wings example literally in the first paragraph I looked at, on the first page I landed on...I was aiming for the Druid section to find something useful and missed by a couple dozen pages.&nbsp; We could fill pages and pages with similar examples from throughout the book.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6871494"] Probably, but I don't recall the question. I tend to only respond to posts that I find interesting or at least un-repetitive. If you would like to re-submit I will consider it. I'm going to re-order some of your post to respond to things in a more logical order. The former, of course. But these two things aren't parallel. Technical and legal documents tend not to be liberally sprinkled with colorful, evocative prose. Furthermore, legal definitions have specific, unambiguous language, in the form of a 1:1 correlations between terms and definitions. For example, a contract might read "John T. Smith, of 101 Pedantic Drive, herein referred to as The Client" or something like that. So, does the "definition" of the Int score meet this criterion? Here's one example: So right there we have [I]four[/I] separate things that Intelligence applies to. That doesn't rule it out as a definition. Our legal contract could say something like: "John T. Smith of 101 Pedantic Lane, Wiley E. Coyote of Eureka, Nevada, and/or Ulysses S. Grant of Grant's Tomb, herein referred to as The Client." Is that an appropriate parallel? Well, we have to ask if there are there other things Int could refer to in the game. What about pattern recognition? Innate mathematical talent? Musical talent? Ability to visualize in 3D? Ability to estimate distances and volumes? How about inductive reasoning? I hope you will agree that these things are also covered by Int, even though they're not explicitly listed. Which means that it's not a definition but merely a list of illustrative examples. Those are two very, very different things. But maybe I am assuming too much. Maybe you do want to rule that Intelligence only applies to the items explicitly listed, and that if, for example, 3D visualization is required it's....well it's not listed on Wisdom or Charisma, either, so I guess you don't get any modifiers. I think that would be a little screwy, but if you do believe that then perhaps the text does meet the requirements for a formal definition...except that we then run into the problem that in the various places these references appear, the list changes. For example, the list above from the SRD is not the same as the list that appears at the equivalent location in the PHB. And elsewhere in the SRD we find: "Intelligence, measuring reasoning and memory". So if this is technically a definition it's not even consistent. To translate this to our legal contract, we would have something like "The Client, which could be Wiley E. Coyote, John T. Smith, Ulysses S. Grant, or somebody like that", which wouldn't be very useful. Especially if elsewhere in the contract it said "Mr. Coyote and U. Grant." and in another place it added a name. Ok, I think I've thoroughly covered the shortcomings of the "legal contract" analogue. But I could see how you might still say this language is a "rule", even if it only provides example uses and not an exhaustive list. If that's the case, what's the "rule" actually saying? Effectively: "When skills of this type are required, the Int score is the relevant ability that should be applied." And what does that mean? The rules are pretty clear: it means that when you perform a related task that depends on that ability, roll a d20 and apply the modifier from that ability to that result. [I]And that's exactly what Eloelle is doing.[/I] What the rules do NOT say is how you need to narrate the results. Q.E.F.D. Onward to the Sorcerer example: Agreed. The deck could count as the Arcane focus (covering the material component), the throwing of the card is the somatic component, and the Sorcerer can say whatever he wants. This does raise issues if, for example, he loses his deck of cards. As DM I personally would treat the deck as "plot proof", but even if the Sorcerer somehow lost the deck my only expectation would be that he narrates a solution. "I flay the slain enemies and draw new cards on pieces of their skin, using my own blood as ink." Or whatever. Ok, next couple sections aren't terribly interesting. Then we get to your response to my question about the images of angelic wings on Devotion Paladins and whether not having them is "breaking the rules". You wrote: Soooo...what category is "not BTB"? Is that following the rules, or breaking the rules (a.k.a. "house ruling")? Because "within the rules" is pretty much a binary state, true or false. You can't be halfway on this one. The book is quite clear and explicit (even more than in the Int definitions): devotion paladins put wings on their helm or shield (and [I]nowhere else[/I], "BTB"). Max, Danny...I'd ask you the same question: is the paladin who doesn't follow this edict house ruling? Does he need permission from his DM? Max, is it a "mechanical" change to exclude the wings? (By the way, this isn't an edge case. I found the angelic wings example literally in the first paragraph I looked at, on the first page I landed on...I was aiming for the Druid section to find something useful and missed by a couple dozen pages. We could fill pages and pages with similar examples from throughout the book.) [/QUOTE]

Verification