Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4458228" data-attributes="member: 40961">You really think you can get away from reasoning the way I do?&nbsp; You can't.&nbsp; You're trapped.&nbsp; You just THINK you're free.Don't believe me?No rule, at all, in the entire fourth edition of dungeons and dragons, says that you know when you receive damage from a non power source.That's not a power.&nbsp; Its arguably a condition.&nbsp; By your reasoning I can inflict ongoing radiant damage to people without them noticing.&nbsp; 'Cause you're going to have to go extra-textual to explain why I can't.I guess you'll just have to make a call, hmm?&nbsp; My argument would be that &quot;liable to be stabbed&quot; is something of which you're aware, but &quot;liable to be stabbed in this specific way with these specific consequences&quot; is not.&nbsp; But yes, I'd have to admit that I'm interpreting.&nbsp; If someone disagreed with me, I'd think they were interpreting as well.&nbsp; And I'd think that my interpretation was better.I object to the use of the phrase, &quot;rules as written.&quot;&nbsp; I think you're using it to add undue weight to a somewhat informally written phrase.&nbsp; Compare the two following hypothetical rules:1. &quot;If one of your Barbarian powers dazes your foe, that foe falls prone.&quot;2. &quot;When you cast a spell, you may make a Thievery check opposed by observers passive Perception score.&nbsp; If you succeed, the observers do not know that you cast anything, though they may notice the affects of the spell itself.&nbsp; You may not use this ability with any power that directly affects an enemy.&quot;Now, we might argue about either rule.&nbsp; Suppose we argued about the first rule, and I argued that this ability should work if you stun an opponent, because stun is basically just daze in a stronger form.&nbsp; So logically, if dazing a foe makes them fall prone, stunning them (ie, dazing them better) should do the same thing.&nbsp; You could reasonably respond that I was trying to put logic over Rules As Written, because the rule very clearly says &quot;daze,&quot; not &quot;daze or stun.&quot;But suppose we argued about the second rule.&nbsp; I argue that this spell works with Stinking Cloud, but not with Fireball, because Stinking Cloud creates a zone, and the zone affects your enemies, so the spell is indirect.&nbsp; Meanwhile the Fireball directly affects your enemies.&nbsp; You disagree with me, based on what you believe &quot;directly affect&quot; to mean.&nbsp; In this sort of argument, Rules As Written are irrelevant, because the rules are not precise.&nbsp; They require interpretation.We are having the second type of argument.&nbsp; &quot;Condition&quot; is not clearly defined in such a way that one can objectively divide all effects in the game into &quot;condition&quot; and &quot;not-condition.&quot;Rules As Written do not hold sway here.Really?&nbsp; Then I dare you to stop.&nbsp; You won't be able to, because neither this edition, nor any past edition, has been written in such a manner as to function flawlessly without interpretation, or even outright DM rulings to cover holes.&nbsp; That's the nature of a game that pretends to be a world-sim.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4458228, member: 40961"] You really think you can get away from reasoning the way I do? You can't. You're trapped. You just THINK you're free. Don't believe me? No rule, at all, in the entire fourth edition of dungeons and dragons, says that you know when you receive damage from a non power source. That's not a power. Its arguably a condition. By your reasoning I can inflict ongoing radiant damage to people without them noticing. 'Cause you're going to have to go extra-textual to explain why I can't. I guess you'll just have to make a call, hmm? My argument would be that "liable to be stabbed" is something of which you're aware, but "liable to be stabbed in this specific way with these specific consequences" is not. But yes, I'd have to admit that I'm interpreting. If someone disagreed with me, I'd think they were interpreting as well. And I'd think that my interpretation was better. I object to the use of the phrase, "rules as written." I think you're using it to add undue weight to a somewhat informally written phrase. Compare the two following hypothetical rules: 1. "If one of your Barbarian powers dazes your foe, that foe falls prone." 2. "When you cast a spell, you may make a Thievery check opposed by observers passive Perception score. If you succeed, the observers do not know that you cast anything, though they may notice the affects of the spell itself. You may not use this ability with any power that directly affects an enemy." Now, we might argue about either rule. Suppose we argued about the first rule, and I argued that this ability should work if you stun an opponent, because stun is basically just daze in a stronger form. So logically, if dazing a foe makes them fall prone, stunning them (ie, dazing them better) should do the same thing. You could reasonably respond that I was trying to put logic over Rules As Written, because the rule very clearly says "daze," not "daze or stun." But suppose we argued about the second rule. I argue that this spell works with Stinking Cloud, but not with Fireball, because Stinking Cloud creates a zone, and the zone affects your enemies, so the spell is indirect. Meanwhile the Fireball directly affects your enemies. You disagree with me, based on what you believe "directly affect" to mean. In this sort of argument, Rules As Written are irrelevant, because the rules are not precise. They require interpretation. We are having the second type of argument. "Condition" is not clearly defined in such a way that one can objectively divide all effects in the game into "condition" and "not-condition." Rules As Written do not hold sway here. Really? Then I dare you to stop. You won't be able to, because neither this edition, nor any past edition, has been written in such a manner as to function flawlessly without interpretation, or even outright DM rulings to cover holes. That's the nature of a game that pretends to be a world-sim. [/QUOTE]

Verification