Glossary Funtime OR Why You Shouldn't Use a Rules Argument Based on the Glossary

[3d6]

FUNTIME WITH THE GLOSSARY

Q. Does a fireball deal damage?

Well, let's look!

deal damage: Cause damage to a target with a successful attack.

target: The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect.

attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The result of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

attack roll: A roll to determine if an attack hits.

Uh-oh! A fireball doesn't have a target -- and it's not an attack, it's result is not determined by an attack roll!

I guess a fireball doesn't deal damage -- too bad for all you evokers out there!

 

[Hypersmurf]

It may not "deal damage", but it does cause "damage".

damage:: A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or
other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness,
or magical effect.

-Hyp.

 

[3d6]

However, you can't take damage from a fireball, so it's a moot point.

take damage: Sustain damage from a successful attack.

Of course, I'm clearly in the presence of a silly rules master, judging from your mastery of the mighty Eagle Claw Attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Whether you "take damage" or not doesn't change the fact that if you are in the AoE of a fireball, "Damage points are deducted from whatever character attribute has been harmed—normal and subdual damage from current hit points, and ability damage from the relevant ability score)."

-Hyp.

 

[3d6]

Hmm. I don't know. The fireball description doesn't say anything about "causing" damage. Just "dealing damage." And of course, it can't do that.

MORE GLOSSARY FUN

Spells giving bonuses to speed got you down? Sick of class abilities giving bonuses to speed? Well, have no fear, Glosso-man is here!

bonus: A positive modifier to a die roll.

Expeditious Retreat: These benefits count as enhancement bonuses.

Too bad for you expeditious retreat users! You can't add an enhancement bonus to speed, because it not a die roll!

 

[Dr_Rictus]

By that logic, any inconsistency in the rules invalidates the entire book. Or perhaps we throw out the book chapter by chapter? If not, what's special about the glossary that it gets this treatment?

"I don't like the fact that some rules only appear in the glossary" is not a compelling answer, by the way.

 

[Mathew Lankard]

Read the topic, his whole point is that you can't use the glossary to define rules. He's simply making a joke to illustrate his point.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I've read the topic, thanks, and don't need an explanation. His whole point is invalid for the reason I mention. His "joke to illustrate his point" is his entire argument, and that argument has no merit.

 

[Kark001]

Come on...laugh a bit.

I find this funny.

 

[LokiDR]

I have to agree that the glossery is incomplete or misleading in a lot of cases. But any one that only uses the glossery to win a rules argument is not trying very hard.

And I think the example is amusing