jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[RigaMortus]

Can you craft a magic weapon in an anti-magic area?

 

[Pielorinho]

Just as a point here, this is the rules forum. In the rules forum, its the RAW we are using.

I understand that, but I think that RAW doesn't necessarily mean programmatic reading of the rules. As I've said, I think that the proper (for me, anyway) approach to the RAW is to read them, discern the gist of the rules, and interpret it that way; for me, counting adjectives does not give the most accurate take on the RAW.

I'm not talking about making house rules here, although I freely do that. I'm talking about figuring out how I *should* read the rules as written.

And yes, it's subjective. Maybe it's because I'm a humanities geek and not a math geek, but I'm totally okay with its being subjective.

It's true that it's very frustrating for a DM to interpret a spell/ability/whatever in a way that seriously weakens your PC. However, I think it's frustrating whether the DM is making this interpretation by the touchy-feely method I espouse, or by the adjective-counting method that Hypersmurf espouses. It's the gimping that hurts, not the reason for the gimping. That's why I favor the approach of, "When in doubt, say yes." It avoids weakening a character either by adjective-counting or by brute instinct.

Daniel

 

[Rystil Arden]

I understand that, but I think that RAW doesn't necessarily mean programmatic reading of the rules. As I've said, I think that the proper (for me, anyway) approach to the RAW is to read them, discern the gist of the rules, and interpret it that way; for me, counting adjectives does not give the most accurate take on the RAW.

I'm not talking about making house rules here, although I freely do that. I'm talking about figuring out how I *should* read the rules as written.

And yes, it's subjective. Maybe it's because I'm a humanities geek and not a math geek, but I'm totally okay with its being subjective.

It's true that it's very frustrating for a DM to interpret a spell/ability/whatever in a way that seriously weakens your PC. However, I think it's frustrating whether the DM is making this interpretation by the touchy-feely method I espouse, or by the adjective-counting method that Hypersmurf espouses. It's the gimping that hurts, not the reason for the gimping. That's why I favor the approach of, "When in doubt, say yes." It avoids weakening a character either by adjective-counting or by brute instinct.

Daniel

The problem with the touchy-feely method, as opposed to the adjective-counting method, is that the touch-feely method is usually more final. If I was my DM, and I came to an adjective-counting conclusion that I thought was unfair, I'd house-rule it away. But when a DM uses the touchy-feely method to determine what the rules *should* say (as you put it), then the assumption is that whatever the DM decides is what the rules *should* say, so there's no way you are going to get him to change it. That's why I think that Hypersmurf's and my method is actually much more flexible, as we save our value judgment for after determining what the rules says as written, instead of applying the judgment during that process. We're doing the same thing, but we're adding an extra step.

 

[Seeten]

I'd like to add here that I agree fully with Rystil. Which seems to be quite common. I reserve value judgements and touchy feely until after I have the logic sorted. I am a humanities geek AND a math geek, by virtue of having majored in philosophy, and logic. I apply the logic test on the rule, any and all supporting rules or contradictory rules, determine how the rule applies across the board, and THEN and only then, do I make a decision based on any feelings.

Anything that isnt important, I handwave anyway, in the interest of the story, but anything important that cant be handwaved, we see what the rules say and mean, and then, if we think they are wrong, or obtuse, or nonsensical, we house rule straight away. Reading into the rules, one rule at a time, whats common sense and ruling the RAW = Your conclusion is a bad idea, or as Hypersmurf states, "Dangerous, that."

Illegal target = spell disappears? Check Shillelagh. I think this is a good idea. It shows how it works in a case that clearly shows the target becoming illegal doesnt end the spell. Now you may disagree and house rule illegal targets = spell is dispelled, but then you have all the rules ramifications that come from that. Polymorph as dispel, stone to flesh flesh to stone as dispel, etc. If the rules, through multiple applications, show themselves to support something, changing it creates a house of cards effect, where you then have to rebuild the house with new pillars, and new rules. Its a lot of work.

I agree that the spirit of the rules is important, but what Hypersmurf does is less "Counting adjectives" as finding all the cases in the rules where X applies, and seeing what they show the actual rule to be. To need this, the original statement of the ruling needs to be unclear as to the final result, of course, or doing a case study is unnecessary. Law students do this a lot also. Want to see what the law is on X? Check the rulings. Do a case study. Johanneson v Brahms shows that X. State vs Alexander Shows X. Therefore, the law states, X.

If you believe X is wrong, then you draft legislation to change it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'd like to add here that I agree fully with Rystil. Which seems to be quite common. I reserve value judgements and touchy feely until after I have the logic sorted. I am a humanities geek AND a math geek, by virtue of having majored in philosophy, and logic. I apply the logic test on the rule, any and all supporting rules or contradictory rules, determine how the rule applies across the board, and THEN and only then, do I make a decision based on any feelings.

Anything that isnt important, I handwave anyway, in the interest of the story, but anything important that cant be handwaved, we see what the rules say and mean, and then, if we think they are wrong, or obtuse, or nonsensical, we house rule straight away. Reading into the rules, one rule at a time, whats common sense and ruling the RAW = Your conclusion is a bad idea, or as Hypersmurf states, "Dangerous, that."

Illegal target = spell disappears? Check Shillelagh. I think this is a good idea. It shows how it works in a case that clearly shows the target becoming illegal doesnt end the spell. Now you may disagree and house rule illegal targets = spell is dispelled, but then you have all the rules ramifications that come from that. Polymorph as dispel, stone to flesh flesh to stone as dispel, etc. If the rules, through multiple applications, show themselves to support something, changing it creates a house of cards effect, where you then have to rebuild the house with new pillars, and new rules. Its a lot of work.

I agree that the spirit of the rules is important, but what Hypersmurf does is less "Counting adjectives" as finding all the cases in the rules where X applies, and seeing what they show the actual rule to be. To need this, the original statement of the ruling needs to be unclear as to the final result, of course, or doing a case study is unnecessary. Law students do this a lot also. Want to see what the law is on X? Check the rulings. Do a case study. Johanneson v Brahms shows that X. State vs Alexander Shows X. Therefore, the law states, X.

If you believe X is wrong, then you draft legislation to change it.

I agree with Seeten! And I'm a humanities geek and a CS geek both, too. I have papers on Celtic and Greek mythology to compliment my weird AIs that I code up for research.

 

[Pielorinho]

Law students do this a lot also.

Indeed they do. I don't want my D&D game to be like a law class. I want it to be like a storytelling session.

Daniel

 

[Rystil Arden]

Indeed they do. I don't want my D&D game to be like a law class. I want it to be like a storytelling session.

Daniel

Well, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, it seems that for the moment over 75% of people use Hypersmurf, Seeten, and my method, and most of the others don't use yours. Not that popularity is any sort of value judgment, of course, but it does show what I expected: that your line of thinking is unusual (I would have considered it unique and/or unthinkable until I saw some people here using it).

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, it seems that for the moment over 75% of people use Hypersmurf, Seeten, and my method, and most of the others don't use yours.

Perhaps--or perhaps they don't venture into the Rules forum very often . I'm not trying to win any converts, but just trying to offer an alternative way to approach rules decisions.

Daniel

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you craft a magic weapon in an anti-magic area?

According to the reading of Antimagic Field in the SRD, it does not prevent you from casting spells, it only supresses thier effect while within the AMF. In addition, you do not actually 'cast' spells while making an item, they are 'activated' by the creation process.

By my interpertation of the RAW, you may certainly make magic items in an antimagic area.

By house rules, I would call for some serious spellcraft checks to do so.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By my interpertation of the RAW, you may certainly make magic items in an antimagic area.

The question, however, wasn't magic items, but specifically magic weapons... and if you scroll back through the thread, you'll find he's actually referring to adding a special ability to a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus.

A weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before you can add a special ability to it.

Within the antimagic field, where magic items are suppressed, the weapon does not have a +1 enhancement bonus... so it's ineligible to have special abilities added.

But then, I rule that if you have a longsword (5 hit points), make it +1 (+10 hit points, total 15), and it gets hit with a Sunder attempt for 10 damage (5 hit points remaining) and then taken into an Antimagic Field, it snaps. The magic goes away, the enhancement bonus goes away, the consequent extra hit points go away, and you're left with a sword that has five hit points and ten damage, for a current total of -5.

-Hyp.