Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

At one point you even said you sympathized with a non-literal reading - though not quite the FAQ's reading - and then only a few short posts later you're back to claiming that the FAQ contradicts the PHB.

Right.

I'm finding no logical disconnect between "Some non-literal readings are acceptable, but the FAQ's is not" and "The FAQ's reading is unacceptable".

I don't see a change of position between the two regarding the FAQ's answer; if your argument has not convinced me to change my position, why should my position change?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

This line of argument is self-defeating. When debating what the rules are, all that matters is what the rules are. As soon as you veer into 'well, the rules don't really mean what they say', that is tantamount to a concession.


glass.

No, it's not. The rules don't always mean what they literally say, no matter how much certain Hyper-literalist RAW proponents like to claim that.

Saying that there is only one viable way of approaching rules interpretations (i.e. rules only mean what they literally say) is just another way of declaring yourself the winner without actually dealing with opposing arguements.

See the forum guidelines - this is NOT the "RAW Forum", it's the Rules forum and debating intent, context, "spirit of the rules", and even "game balance" is every bit as important (or more important in many cases) as parsing the rules by what they literally say.

If you don't like that, too bad. Sometimes you have to recognize that the person you are debating with is approaching the rules with a different philosopy than you, and that doesn't make their arguements inherently false. Sometimes you will be able to come to a meeting of the minds, other times you will have to accept that your ways of viewing the rules are incompatible and just agree to disagree (or tell them you aren't going to be convinced and stop posting in that thread - often the closes you can get to that around here).

(Unfortunately, being internet geeks many of us are nearly incapable of letting a subject drop without achieveing some sense of victory, moral or otherwise. I include myself in this statement.)

Personally, while I respect Hypes knowledge of rules minutae, I find his method of debating very grating, and decided that the only way to have a positive outcome is not to cater to his preferred debating style. He and I have generally incompatible rules philosophies and debating styles. Eventually he got the hint (at least I think he has - it's hard to tell with him).

 

[Umbran]

I guess Hyp, when he displayed the exact same qualities of those arrogant douches...

If you want to be insulting, do it elsewhere. This sideways insult is extremely transparent, and such will not be tolerated further. On these message boards, if you cannot speak about other folks with respect and civility, you shouldn't speak of them at all.

If you've got a question about this, please feel free to e-mail one of the moderators. Our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.

 

[eamon]

Right.

I'm finding no logical disconnect between "Some non-literal readings are acceptable, but the FAQ's is not" and "The FAQ's reading is unacceptable".

I don't see a change of position between the two regarding the FAQ's answer; if your argument has not convinced me to change my position, why should my position change?

The post you replied to was no more that an explanation of conceivably frustrating inconsistency. You're not obliged to change your opinion, of course . My other posts contain actual arguments, however... much more interesting ;-).

Anyways, my "vacation behind the keyboard" is drawing to a close, so - thanks for a lively discussion, and happy gaming!

 

[glass]

No, it's not. The rules don't always mean what they literally say, no matter how much certain Hyper-literalist RAW proponents like to claim that.

They don't always mean what they say, but they always say what they say. The rules don't mean anything, in and of themselves. The designers may have meant something different

Saying that there is only one viable way of approaching rules interpretations (i.e. rules only mean what they literally say) is just another way of declaring yourself the winner without actually dealing with opposing arguements.

Noone is saying that. As you say below, speculating about the intent behind the rules (explicitly) is fine. However, Cameron and eamon have not been doing that, they have been stating that the rules say something they demonstrably don't say. Which is why Hyp and I have been trying to set them straight.

See the forum guidelines - this is NOT the "RAW Forum", it's the Rules forum and debating intent, context, "spirit of the rules", and even "game balance" is every bit as important (or more important in many cases) as parsing the rules by what they literally say.

You won't be surprised to learn, I disagree. While game balance is certainly important, I don't give a monkeys about designer intent or the spirit of the rules; they are not at all important to me. However, I recognise that just because I don't consider certain things important it doesn't mean that you don't or can't. Perhaps you could return the courtesy.

If you don't like that, too bad. Sometimes you have to recognize that the person you are debating with is approaching the rules with a different philosopy than you, and that doesn't make their arguements inherently false.

No, I don't. If eamon and Cameron are merely speculating about what the rules should say, or what the designers meant them to say, then they should say that and there would be no argument from me. They haven't been doing that.

Personally, while I respect Hypes knowledge of rules minutae, I find his method of debating very grating, and decided that the only way to have a positive outcome is not to cater to his preferred debating style. He and I have generally incompatible rules philosophies and debating styles. Eventually he got the hint (at least I think he has - it's hard to tell with him).

If you don't like RAW debates, why do you insist on chiming in on them? I don't (usually) get involved with intent debates, but I don't feel the need to pop in and insult those who are.


glass.

 

[Caliban]

If you don't like RAW debates, why do you insist on chiming in on them? I don't (usually) get involved with intent debates, but I don't feel the need to pop in and insult those who are.


glass.

And now you are trying to make it personal. Like I said, different philosophies. You've made it pretty clear that you don't value anyones opinion unless they approach the rules the way you do. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Have fun.

 

[Cameron]

Noone is saying that. As you say below, speculating about the intent behind the rules (explicitly) is fine. However, Cameron and eamon have not been doing that, they have been stating that the rules say something they demonstrably don't say. Which is why Hyp and I have been trying to set them straight.
glass.

Incorrect. We both have been saying that the rules are unclear on that point, but that was cleared up by the FAQ. *You*, on the other hand, seem to think that an official WotC source ain't worth the pixels it was formatted in. *You* take a few sentences out of context and start waxing poetic about them. Political content removed by admin.

 

[Piratecat]

Cameron, this is the second time in a week we've had to remove political references from your posts. Please shoot up to the top of the forum and re-read the Rules. In particular, do not make political references, and don't tell other people "what they think". That's rude, and is not going to be tolerated. It's possible to have a discussion without having a fight.

Thanks. Email me if you wish to discuss this further, or if you have any questions.

EDIT: I just saw Umbran's note above. Ignoring moderator directives gets you a free vacation for a couple of days.

Klunk.