The dominated condition and sneak attack

[moxcamel]

I dont know any CS agent in WotC, and i'm sure you dont either =P lol... But i ave worked as a CS agent for LARGE companies, and believe me, as minimum wage employees (or slightly there above) the quality of the service your recieve equals the quality of their pay lol... CS agents are a good source of information, but dont think for even a second it's 100% accurate... they have lunchs and quotas to make too... hasted answers happen, and simple details are always over looked

Nevertheless, CS is WotC's avenue for providing official clarification to their customers.

You cannot insist with any credibility that the RAW is the alpha, the omega, the end-all, the be-all, and then in the same breath say that the the very same source of the rules are wrong when they make a ruling through the conduit that they make rulings through.

As for the quality of CS rep, if you are talking about a cell phone company, or a computer manufacturer, or some other traditional business, then yes. But CS people who go to work for companies such as WotC or Blizzard or some other entertainment company tend to do so because they have a passion for the product and they see it as a foot in the door to the industry. There is rarely a path to bigger and better things via customer support at Dell, but it's one of the best ways to work your way up the ladder at Turbine, for example. I don't know if this is the case at WotC, but I'd be willing to bet the guys and gals that answer the phones and emails there are a lot more clueful than most when it comes to their area of coverage.

In any case, we don't know. But we do know that this is an official source, and to dismiss an official source is akin to ignoring a rule you don't like. (which is your prerogative, but then you are house ruling.) And it's terribly disingenuous to dismiss a CS ruling based on how you imagine them to be, especially because they didn't give an answer that doesn't support your own conclusions.

 

[Smurtis]

In any case, we don't know. But we do know that this is an official source, and to dismiss an official source is akin to ignoring a rule you don't like. (which is your prerogative, but then you are house ruling.) And it's terribly disingenuous to dismiss a CS ruling based on how you imagine them to be, especially because they didn't give an answer that doesn't support your own conclusions.

You are dismissing the book source, which has been written, created and constantly edited by, i'm sure, hundreds of WotC people... forgive me for saying, but i'm gonna assume an actual source book, after amendments/erratas, that it will trump a single contact from whom may or may not get the same pay as someone working at Macdonalds... (ok, maybe more so lol...)... tell you what... you get atleast 3 CS agents agreeing with your view, i'm sure everyone will conceed...

However, if you do, be sure to perfectly clarify IN DETAIL exactly what the issue is

sourcebook > 1 CS agent IMO... but as you pointed out, you do as you please in your games, that's what's so great about this game...

Just an FYI, in my game, we do, for the most part, assume it is a literal definition only cause we like it that way. As to say, i prefer the idea of being mind-F*cked by a vampire and chasing after my allies lol (as to say, they are my enemies, and the vampire is my new best friend)... it does add a cool flavor, even though it's technically against the rules.

Cheers!

 

[Dausuul]

The obvious solution to the CustServ question is to go back to CustServ, explain the debate, quote the relevant bit from the sneak attack rules, and ask if this means the original ruling is in error.

I would bet the answer will be "yes," but I don't have enough of a stake in the argument to bother.

 

[Aulirophile]

Nevertheless, CS is WotC's avenue for providing official clarification to their customers.

Actually it is worth noting that in Sanctioned Play, CS is no longer official. CS rulings have zero impact in the 2.0 LFR CCG. Only the official FAQ, written by developers, and source material qualify. So in the only arena it was in any way official, it no longer is.

And the source material says you're wrong, so.

 

[moxcamel]

You are dismissing the book source, which has been written, created and constantly edited by, i'm sure, hundreds of WotC people... forgive me for saying, but i'm gonna assume an actual source book, after amendments/erratas, that it will trump a single contact from whom may or may not get the same pay as someone working at Macdonalds... (ok, maybe more so lol...)... tell you what... you get atleast 3 CS agents agreeing with your view, i'm sure everyone will conceed...

However, if you do, be sure to perfectly clarify IN DETAIL exactly what the issue is

sourcebook > 1 CS agent IMO... but as you pointed out, you do as you please in your games, that's what's so great about this game...

Just an FYI, in my game, we do, for the most part, assume it is a literal definition only cause we like it that way. As to say, i prefer the idea of being mind-F*cked by a vampire and chasing after my allies lol (as to say, they are my enemies, and the vampire is my new best friend)... it does add a cool flavor, even though it's technically against the rules.

Cheers!

I doubt anyone would believe me if I said that I'd contacted 3 different CS types, explaining the issue in excruciating detail, and that all 3 reps upheld the original rep's ruling.

And if they ruled against the original answer, it would be disingenuous for anyone who had already dismissed the CS ruling to now say that yes, of course CS is right, after already dismissing them as underpaid lackeys.

If anyone cares to give it a go though, I'm certainly not too proud to acknowledge if an official answer goes against my own interpretation. I've been wrong before, and while I don't think I'm wrong now, turns out I'm usually very graceful in defeat.

 

[DracoSuave]

Once again, I'd love to know where you get your information that the CS reps at WotC are "the least D&D-savvy" employees. It has always been my experience that people who find themselves in these kinds of positions do so out of a passion for the game, and although they are often the lowest paid people in the company, they are also often the most knowledgeable. In fact, the gaming industry (both p&p and video) is filled with designers and producers who got their foot in the door by answering phones and emails. I could certainly be wrong about this in the case of WotC, but I don't profess to know. But I don't think you know either.

There is a grand misconception at work here.

CustHelp is the webfront for a company called RightNow. There are many companies like RightNow... Stream, EDS, and such like that. They are in the business of providing third party customer support. In otherwords...

You write to Custhelp, you've been outsourced to a third party.

So are RightNow employees the most knowledgable of WoTC Employees? No. Because they are not WoTC employees.

I used to do third party support for HP... there's no guarantee of proficiency there. It's not what they get hired for.

 

[Abstruse]

Actually it is worth noting that in Sanctioned Play, CS is no longer official. CS rulings have zero impact in the 2.0 LFR CCG. Only the official FAQ, written by developers, and source material qualify. So in the only arena it was in any way official, it no longer is.

And the source material says you're wrong, so.

Yes, prove to us that CS is wrong by quoting something about a game that's 1) a CCG and not a roleplaying game and 2) not even a Wizards of the Coast product.

I emailed the official source for asking rules questions about D&D and got an answer. You don't like it? YOU bug CS more. I'm already on their shitlist for bugging them about other things (D&D Minis and the podcasts) so I'm not asking them again for a question that was already answered.

Or if you like, I've got a few developers and freelancers on my Facebook and Twitter and I could bug them if you like. And when THEY agree with the official ruling, that means they're wrong too? Do I need to ask Chris Perkins? Bill Slavicsek? What exactly is high enough up the food chain at the COMPANY THAT MAKES THE GAME for it to be the definitive answer in they don't agree with you?

Oh, and about CS's rules savvy? I got Divine Powers the day it hit the shelves, read half of it on the bus home, and called them up with a list of questions involving powers, domains, and feats. They were all answered immediately with no page flipping or hold time or anything else AND the errata and FAQs have held up each of the answers I was given.

 

[Aulirophile]

/shrug. CS is consistently wrong on rules question, including disagreeing with FAQs (and actual rules, but hey). Your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. And, as mentioned, CS doesn't actually work for WotC. They are a third-party company. It is worth noting that the sole arena where CS was considered official decided to disregard them for incompetence. Somehow that seems relevant to a discussion of whether CS is trustworthy, that an entire organization said "No, these people are incompetent more often then not." Because they are, a fact that is easily evident if you frequent the rules Q&A forum on WotC's site and see even half the they post that is just flat our wrong. Beats the hell out of anecdotal evidence.

Well, for starters, you could ask someone who works for the company that makes the game. CS doesn't, Freelancers don't. Good try though!

Yeah, name dropping is not a good argument. Particularly as actual devs have said things that are incorrect. There was a dev who said a weapon wielded 2-handed was a 2-handed weapon (in fairness this was an off-hand comment). Not only was he wrong, a month later they errata'd every single Barbarian power that was causing the issue that caused the question to be asked in the first place. Real answers go through a vetting process for precisely this reason.

But honestly? They'd need to rewrite the rules, because they are abundantly clear. So... any rules update would be fine. Think you can swing that, just to be right post-facto?

 

[Abstruse]

Well, for starters, you could ask someone who works for the company that makes the game. CS doesn't, Freelancers don't. Good try though!

Yeah, name dropping is not a good argument. Particularly as actual devs have said things that are incorrect.

Okay, so I need to ask someone who works for the company, but I can't ask the developers because they're wrong or the freelancers because even though they write the rules they aren't actual employees so they don't know anything. I can't ask the managing editor or the head of R&D either because "name dropping" isn't a good argument. So I guess I should just grab the employee directory and start calling everyone to ask them until someone agrees with you and then they'll be right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Does that sum it up?

Either there's an official source for rules arbitration or there's not. Seeing as WotC has experience with this sort of thing considering there are professional M:tG tournaments and all, I'd think they'd have this thing sorted out.

 

[abyssaldeath]

You can ask anybody anything, but if they can't back it up with text rules or page numbers, like the folks here do, then what they say doesn't hold any weight. The biggest problem that I have with CS is that they NEVER provide where they are getting their answers from. The Devs have made mistakes too, but you have to remember that they are sometimes working with rules that we don't see. Maybe they are testing/have tested some rules changes they are thinking/thought about integrating, but it never actually made it to print. I'm sure that keeping track of all the behind the scenes rule building, testing and changes that have been tossed in the trash bin or made it to print can be hard to keep track of.

tl/dr: The devs are humans too and make mistakes just like the rest of us.