So... Do Summoned Creatures Suck?

[Moorcrys]

It does have that duration written on it. It's in the keywords, when it says 'Summoning.'

By including the keyword, it is not required to include any rules text that is inherent to the keyword. Stance powers don't -need- to include the stance rules, runic powers don't -need- to include the runic rules... it's the whole reason keywords have rules text to begin with.

Now you're just being stubborn. He quoted from the book which specifies, in print, the intent of the spell duration, even if the wording in the power block, while different than any other wording of any other summoning in the book and pretty obviously an exception to the normal summoning duration rules, is too vague for you. It's from the book containing the power, not preview text from dragon.

 

[DracoSuave]

Now you're just being stubborn. He quoted from the book which specifies, in print, the intent of the spell duration, even if the wording in the power block, while different than any other wording of any other summoning in the book and pretty obviously an exception to the normal summoning duration rules, is too vague for you. It's from the book containing the power, not preview text from dragon.

I've already stated that it seems that is the intention, but that the way the power is written, because the power does not actually contradict the rule, the original rule still would apply.

Notice: No contradiction. It doesn't matter how other powers are written, it matters if it contradicts the original rule, which it does not.

I understand that there's been advertisements stating it works one way, but unfortunately, if that is their intention, they munged it up. And it might not be a statement of intention, but a statement of interpretation, which would also be a mistake.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

The intent is completely clear. The power could certainly be written even more clear, of course. Almost every power could. You did report it for errata I saw, so hopefully that will get cleared up eventually.

I'd XP you for suffering through four pages worth of this discussion but apparently I have to spread it around.

 

[Moorcrys]

I've already stated that it seems that is the intention, but that the way the power is written, because the power does not actually contradict the rule, the original rule still would apply.

Notice: No contradiction. It doesn't matter how other powers are written, it matters if it contradicts the original rule, which it does not.

I understand that there's been advertisements stating it works one way, but unfortunately, if that is their intention, they munged it up. And it might not be a statement of intention, but a statement of interpretation, which would also be a mistake.

Keterys quoted it above -- Heroes of Shadow, page 101, second column, bottom paragraph.

It's not an advertisement. It's in the printed book, stated explicitly.

You're being stubborn.

 

[DracoSuave]

Keterys quoted it above -- Heroes of Shadow, page 101, second column, bottom paragraph.

It's not an advertisement. It's in the printed book, stated explicitly.

You're being stubborn.

And the power is not in agreement with that, do to the absense of exceptionary text.

As I already said, I'm well aware of the intention. And I'm well aware of what is missing from the power to make said intention correct.

Is there a single word in the power that says that the power can last longer than an encounter? No. Not one. Zero. Is there a single word in the power that says it ends at the end of the encounter... yes. One. "Summoning." Had the power stated 'The power ONLY ends when _________' then it would have been exceptionary. The power does not, however, exclude other ending conditions placed on it. No contradiction = no exception.

RAW does not match RAI. That's a statement of fact, not being stubborn. If a power wants to be an exception to the rules, it, like every other power that does so in the entire game, must provide a contradiction to those rules. This is why Power Strike got errata'd to No Action... because while it was intended to be used with a scout's at-will power, it could not, in fact, do so as it was written. Thusly... it was changed to reflect the intention. It wasn't -designed- for that purpose however... it works with a slayer just fine.

Conversely, if this power is intended to have staying power, should it not have better defenses so that it can last beyond an encounter? The power's design does not match the power's intention, and in cases like this, sometimes the power changes to match the intention. Other times... the intention changes to match the power.

This is a case where Intention and RAW do not agree. And until they address the difference, one cannot state the rules 'clearly state such and such' when they clearly do not. What is written is that it lasts until the end of the encounter. What is described about it is some other thing. I don't doubt they'll add in something to ensure it can behave as desired. What cannot be said, however, is that it says it magically creates exceptions to the rules simply because we want them to be there. That's not how 'Rules as Written' works.

 

[Oldtimer]

Is there a single word in the power that says that the power can last longer than an encounter?

How about "otherwise"? I think a strong case can be (and has been) made for this word have the exclusivity it normally has.

Condition A => duration ends.
otherwise (i.e. if no Condition A)
Condition B OR Condition C => duration ends.

I think that parses into an exception that overrides the general rule.

 

[DracoSuave]

How about "otherwise"? I think a strong case can be (and has been) made for this word have the exclusivity it normally has.

Condition A => duration ends.
otherwise (i.e. if no Condition A)
Condition B OR Condition C => duration ends.

I think that parses into an exception that overrides the general rule.

Except that all that can be parsed like that, but none of it contradicts Condition D, which the power also states by dint of having the Summoning keyword. None of that contradicts Condition D, and contradiction is the necessary state to occur for specific vs general to apply.

One -can- apply both the specific AND the general at the same time. Therefore, no contradiction. Therefore, there is not a valid case for saying that the general rule does not apply.

 

[Oldtimer]

Except that all that can be parsed like that, but none of it contradicts Condition D, which the power also states by dint of having the Summoning keyword. None of that contradicts Condition D, and contradiction is the necessary state to occur for specific vs general to apply.

I agree that it needs to contradict Condition D, but it can be seen to do that. If you parse "otherwise" to mean "if that doesn't happen, this must happen". I.e. If Condition A doesn't apply, only Condition B or Condition C can end the duration, thereby excluding Condition D from having an effect.

Is that not a possible interpretation of the word "otherwise"?

 

[Moorcrys]

Silliness.

This isn't a computer program. The text is clear for anyone who cares to read the entry on the power. Draco is disregarding what is stated explicitly in the text to take a stand on how he feels the powerbox should be worded. There's going to be no acknowledgment on his part regardless of what is shown to him. Bottom line - choose a different power if you play a necromancer or nethermancer in a game that he's DMing and save yourself a headache.

Cheers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's going to be no acknowledgment on his part regardless of what is shown to him.

Well, to be fair... that's because you're unable to actually give him what he asks for.

Oldtimer's getting closer to what Draco's looking for, but hasn't been able to get it exact. What we have here is now a situation where without errata... the best we could do is we'd have to go back to precedent and find out if using the word 'otherwise' has in fact been used to completely negate rules in all other times it's occurred. If it has, then the argument could be made that what Oldtimer points out could be considered correct. However, if 'otherwise' was not used the same across the board for all the powers it appeared with... then Draco's point still stands.

And Moorcrys... you're wrong when you say this isn't a computer program. To the folks who talk about and argue Rules as Written... the logic to them is as if it was a computer program. (And I'm not saying that's a proper or correct way to look at things necessarily... but it is a requirement if you're playing the game of rules parsing.) It's verbal mathematics and logic is king.