jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Seeten]

Somehow, I don't think that argument will work on one of the Rules Forum moderators?

Moderators are people too, and sometimes people just forget what they are saying and where. Like I said, I'm not saying you cant discuss anything, and I am not moderating the forum, just mentioning that this IS the rules forum, and thats the forum where people come to discuss the RAW.

I have a ton of house rules, but knowing what the RAW is, is a vital place to start, prior to making the house rule. If I can tell a player, "The RAW says this for this rule. I dont like the way that works, because of x leading to y, so the house rule I use is [spelled out house rule]."

The house rules forum is a great forum, with lots of great stuff and great common sense, but the RAW and common sense are sometimes exclusive, and this forum isnt necessarily about the whys but the hows.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Moderators are people too, and sometimes people just forget what they are saying and where. Like I said, I'm not saying you cant discuss anything, and I am not moderating the forum, just mentioning that this IS the rules forum, and thats the forum where people come to discuss the RAW.

I have a ton of house rules, but knowing what the RAW is, is a vital place to start, prior to making the house rule. If I can tell a player, "The RAW says this for this rule. I dont like the way that works, because of x leading to y, so the house rule I use is [spelled out house rule]."

The house rules forum is a great forum, with lots of great stuff and great common sense, but the RAW and common sense are sometimes exclusive, and this forum isnt necessarily about the whys but the hows.

Well, as I said before, I agree with you completely about the middle paragraph.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

One reason is because permanancy can be dispelled. A level 15 caster could Extend GMW for 30 hours, and continually keep it magic that way. But that can still be dispelled.

So like I asked, could you make a GMW'd masterwork sword magical (say +1 Flaming)? Or is it an invalid target while GMW is on it?

I think a better question is, could you give only the Flaming ability to a masterwork sword with Extended GMW on it for the entire time you use Craft Magic Arms and Armour on it? The requirement is that the weapon have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. GMW covers that, as long as you never let it run out.

 

[domino]

So, is it too late to ask if an Ogre, with Hold Monster cast on it, and then somehow turned into a humanoid gets out of Hold Monster?

 

[Rystil Arden]

So, is it too late to ask if an Ogre, with Hold Monster cast on it, and then somehow turned into a humanoid gets out of Hold Monster?

That's an easy one. Of course not: Hold Monster affects humanoids too.

 

[domino]

Well nuts to that then. Switch it around.

A human turned into an ogre.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well nuts to that then. Switch it around.

A human turned into an ogre.

By the rules: It would remain paralysed because the spell description doesn't require the subject to be humanoid except for purposes of targeting.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think a better question is, could you give only the Flaming ability to a masterwork sword with Extended GMW on it for the entire time you use Craft Magic Arms and Armour on it? The requirement is that the weapon have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. GMW covers that, as long as you never let it run out.

So does that mean that you could add flaming to a sword +X (from GMW), but if the GMW was ever dispelled or its duration runs out without another being cast, that the "prerequisite" for the flaming would be gone and dissapear?

 

[Pickaxe]

It's possible I'm out of touch with the rules, if you mean the programmatic approach to the rules. I'm perfectly okay with that; for what it's worth, I think that you're somewhat out of touch with the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules is far more subjective, which is something I regard as a feature and you regard as a weakness. It's a fundamental difference in playstyle, but not one that necessarily has a right or wrong answer.

Daniel

How can someone be "out of touch" with something that's subjective? I agree that the spirit of the rules (which I believe is equivalent to what you are calling the common sense approach) is important, but I think you are missing two important points:

1) Hypersmurf is indeed taking an approach that considers the spirit of the rules, not just the "letter of the law." His iconic example is Shillelagh, where he identifies two possible interpretations of the RAW, and then essentially asks which is the correct interpretation, presumably based on the spirit of the rules. He is only being "programmatic" in arguing that this rule should be consistently applied.

2) Your own argument about dominate person and the polymorphed giant shows (at least to me) the failing of the common sense approach here. You are favoring the notion that type-changing effects should affect type-based spells, based on the spirit of the rules. I would argue that the spirit of the rules could just as easily support the opposite conclusion. Was the restriction of dominate person to affecting only humanoids meant to give shapeshifters the upper hand in this case, or was the change of type from polymorph type spells and powers meant as a way to terminate type-based spells? Is it really necessarily "common sense" that a dominated person can inadvertently break the domination by changing the form of his body (but not the nature of his mind)?

In this case, we have a specific situation that allows for multiple interpretations by RAW. The common sense approach could be applied, but, as you note, it's subjective, and in this case (as opposed to the case with Shillelagh, or with Ray of Enfeeblement preventing death by shadow attack) I think different people will cleave to different interpretations. You could base your choice on what you think is the spirit of the rules concerning these spells and powers, or you could look to comparable situations where the RAW are more clear.

--Axe

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So does that mean that you could add flaming to a sword +X (from GMW), but if the GMW was ever dispelled or its duration runs out without another being cast, that the "prerequisite" for the flaming would be gone and dissapear?

A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

So the flaming ability is only present when the +1 is. However, this can be interpreted in three ways:

1. If the GMW expires or is dispelled, the flaming effect is gone forever.
2. If the GMW expires or is dispelled, the flaming effect is suppressed, to return when the weapon is given a +1 enhancement bonus again, by Magic Weapon or GMW.
3. Because a weapon with the flaming ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus, the enhancement bonus of a weapon with the flaming ability cannot be lowered below +1. Therefore, if GMW is dispelled or expires, the flaming ability itself grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus, since the weapon can't not have a +1 bonus.

Take your pick.