Danger definition

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
There has been some discussion - mainly due to lack of adequate definition


regarding


event




e·vent  [ih-vent]



noun
1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.


2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.


3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.


Dictionary definition as none provided. I would not have said targeting is an event by this definition, is not a happening or an occurence or an outcome or issue. (In fact i would have argued strongly that it was not - eg  in a fight the issue is do you win etc etc).
I would have gone with targeting is an instance. Too many arguements with dictionary definition of words as they filtered by each persons perceptions - which is why strong single definition in a rule is so much better (much more likely to think it means the same thing to different people). (Note at this point you would have to define happening occurrance and don't be surprised when there is variation in that as well).

But having said that so much requires the DM to - rules as intrepreted  - that simply to keep the game going requires that i bite my tongue and just roll with it.

Which leads to that loverly turn of phrase; coined here - - "expect table variation" 


As a further trivial example - some (including item) powers have  spend a healing surge and  . . . . (effect), and healing powers have spend a healing surge and recover hit points - - -

A belt a player acquired had "spend a healing surge. (note full stop). A diamond break . . . "  So our DM did  RAI it to add the words and recover hit points . . . so it would have the intended effect.

The real problem is when WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED EFFECT WAS MEANT TO BE! 


In writing rules the authors have to strike a balance between readability  and accuracy - but 4e has leaned too far towards  readability and lost too much accuracy.
And I for one hope that they are more technical in any further products they produce - like D&D next for example. 


(as an example a game I own has a glossary of all terms used in the rules, with the rider that when used in these rules, that term has this single definition - which makes the rules easy to read [you can read the rules to get an overall feel easily], but is also strongly and clearly defined. And Yes of course sometimes going with vague reading leads to doing it "wrong" initiallly, but when investigated what is intended is easily determined.)

There has been some discussion - mainly due to lack of adequate definition


regarding


event




e·vent  [ih-vent]



noun
1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.


2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.


3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.


Dictionary definition as none provided. I would not have said targeting is an event by this definition, is not a happening or an occurence or an outcome or issue. (In fact i would have argued strongly that it was not - eg  in a fight the issue is do you win etc etc).
I would have gone with targeting is an instance. Too many arguements with dictionary definition of words as they filtered by each persons perceptions - which is why strong single definition in a rule is so much better (much more likely to think it means the same thing to different people). (Note at this point you would have to define happening occurrance and don't be surprised when there is variation in that as well).


What is the context of this...argument?  Does this actually relate to some rules dispute.

As a further trivial example - some (including item) powers have  spend a healing surge and  . . . . (effect), and healing powers have spend a healing surge and recover hit points - - -

A belt a player acquired had "spend a healing surge. (note full stop). A diamond break . . . "  So our DM did  RAI it to add the words and recover hit points . . . so it would have the intended effect.

The real problem is when WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED EFFECT WAS MEANT TO BE! 


Whoa.  Calm down.  Your DM accidentally applied RAW. 

RAW: "When you spend a healing surge, you restore lost hit points to your current hit point total." Player's Handbook, pg 293.  Easily found in the index by looking up "healing surges".

RAW: "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."  Player's Handbook, pg 11.  This is a bit harder to find since its not in the index.

Therefore, when you spend a healing surge, unless the effect states otherwise (such as with the Paladin's Lay On Hands feature), you regain hit points.

With the Diamond Cincture, you expend a diamond to regain hit points and reduce the item's bonus by one.  When there are no more diamonds, you can no longer use the item's power.  When you take a extended rest, the diamonds are restored.  Pretty simple.


In writing rules the authors have to strike a balance between readability  and accuracy - but 4e has leaned too far towards  readability and lost too much accuracy.
And I for one hope that they are more technical in any further products they produce - like D&D next for example.


The funny thing is that people usually complain the opposite.

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
....So, by the dictionary definition, you wouldn't say targeting happened? If targeting didn't happen, then you didn't target anything. That is obviously false.

Also in this context "targeting" is stiputalely defined as an event by the trigger rules. That fact that it isn't an action or an effect means it must be an event, or it wouldn't be a valid trigger for powers (and it is). So regardless of whether the dictionary definition applied (though it clearly does) the rules are pretty clear it is an event.

I wouldn't say 4e's rules aren't really readable or accurate. Playing the system is fun, learning it is not, and even when you learn it there are large areas that require dedication to figure out.
"That fact that it isn't an action or an effect means it must be an event"


let me say i enjoy playing 4e - but i disagree with the above    if it isn't an action or an effect - it is not necessarily an event. As i understand event etc.


Arguements where you disagree on what the words mean are pointless. Is all I am trying to say and trying to sympathize with both sides.

"When you spend a healing surge, you restore lost hit points to your current hit point total."  - 

"As a free action, you can spend up to two healing surges when activating this item; each one gives the elephant temporary hit points equal to your healing surge value." and ?

So when I use a power thats says spend a healing surge I regain lost HP as well as the effect? (because the effect does not cancel that?) No don't answer that the our DM will RAI it just to make the game flow - we are about to get into a discussion where we have no basis because we do not agree as to what the words mean. 
   


Yes, it is. Exactly three things are listed as valid triggers. Targeting is a valid trigger, because it exists. Targeting is not an action or an effect. Therefore, targeting must be an Event. Period. There is no logical argument that can result in any other conclusion. This is in addition to the point I already made about language, which is that the plain English definition would also make targeting an event, because otherwise targeting didn't happen, which is utter nonsense.

You brought this up and are ignoring both the common use of the word and the actual rules in order to state an unsubstantiated opinion. It isn't pointless at all and actually definitions of words is one of the most easily solved disagreements. If there is no rules definition, of any kind, you use the dictionary. But in this case there is a stipulative rules definition and the dictionary definition ends up being identical, so you're wrong twice.

You just don't understand language, I'm afraid.
So when I use a power thats says spend a healing surge I regain lost HP as well as the effect? (because the effect does not cancel that?)


Yes, exactly.  That is exactly what the rules say.  The rules do what they say they do.  No more, no less.

No don't answer that the our DM will RAI it just to make the game flow - we are about to get into a discussion where we have no basis because we do not agree as to what the words mean.


That is unfortunate.

Yes, it is. Exactly three things are listed as valid triggers. Targeting is a valid trigger, because it exists. Targeting is not an action or an effect.


Oh?  Are we talking about powers with "Trigger" entries?  Then Alcestis has it right.  But here's a different direction to address the issue from.

First, remember that the rules do what they say they do.  No more, no less.  If a power says that it is triggered when you are targeted (usually by an attack), it is triggered when you are targeted (again, usually by an attack).

Second, all powers that can target a creature have a "Target" line.  If, when a creature uses a power, you would be considered one of the targets, you have been targeted.

It's that simple.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Also its important to note that all creatures are targeted before the first one is even attacked as per Making Attacks (RC 214)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Also its important to note that all creatures are targeted before the first one is even attacked as per Making Attacks (RC 214)


As well as "Making An Attack" (PHB, pg269).
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Yes. Making Attacks (RC 214) is basically the latest incarnation of this process. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yes, it is. Exactly three things are listed as valid triggers. Targeting is a valid trigger, because it exists. Targeting is not an action or an effect. Therefore, targeting must be an Event. Period. There is no logical argument that can result in any other conclusion.

Well, you could conclude that since an IR is triggered on an action, condition, or event, and the stated trigger is (according to some people) not one of those things, the power can never be triggered.

Also its important to note that all creatures are targeted before the first one is even attacked as per Making Attacks (RC 214)

Which doesn't necessarily work as written with multiattack powers that include movement, either directly or as an effect of feats, items, or other powers. 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Also in this context "targeting" is stiputalely defined as an event by the trigger rules. That fact that it isn't an action or an effect means it must be an event, or it wouldn't be a valid trigger for powers (and it is). So regardless of whether the dictionary definition applied (though it clearly does) the rules are pretty clear it is an event.

I wouldn't say 4e's rules aren't really readable or accurate. Playing the system is fun, learning it is not, and even when you learn it there are large areas that require dedication to figure out.



There is no such thing as proof by exclusion of all other possibilities in 4e.  You cannot say "Because it is not X or Y, then it is Z."  It is only Z if it says it is Z.  It's Muchkinesque.  Not quite Munchkin, but close.

That you assume that targeting is the event that the trigger is creating to determine whether the trigger is referencing an event just makes your argument circular, in addition to not adhering properly to exception-based design.

That you're willing to invoke SvG as to the powers that your argument renders nonfunctional, but don't even allow for the possibility that a specifically-designed trigger might conflict with the general trigger rules - to the point where you grant the definition the title of 'stipulative' - is thoroughly inconsistent.

I don't know about you, but I don't tend to accept arguments that aren't self-consistent or circular.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Well, since the argument isn't either one....

The trigger rules list what kind of things can be triggers. If something is a trigger, and targeting is a potential trigger as evidenced by numerous powers that have it as a trigger, then it must be one of those things, because the trigger rules say so.

Now, that isn't circular and is provably logical within just a few lines. The only alternative is Warrl's post, which is that the powers simply don't function. Which is about right for the level of nonsense you have to resort to to make any other conclusion work.

Also, powers have a lot of rules. I am obeying all the power rules. That isn't really "SvG" so much as obeying two rules. Triggers also have rules and I am obeying the trigger rules. No explanation you've ever put forward for this obeys all the rules in question, it only obeys the ones you agree with. Now that is an example of an invalid argument. ^.^
Now, that isn't circular and is provably logical within just a few lines. The only alternative is Warrl's post, which is that the powers simply don't function. Which is about right for the level of nonsense you have to resort to to make any other conclusion work.


The rules for powers also make Opportunity Attack not function either, but I don't see you saying that the argument is wrong because of that.

And you're not understanding what I mean when I say that it is circular.  You are taking the following trigger line:

Trigger:  You are targeted by an attack


And claiming that "targeting" is the event.  Why do you ignore the other half of the trigger, where it says...by an attack?  How do you then ignore the rules that tell you how to resolve reactions that are triggered by attacks?

You're ignoring text in order to make your assumption valid, that the "targeting" part is the event and not the "attack" part.  And then claiming that because you decided that "targeting" was the trigger, that "targeting" is the event.  It's patently circular.  You're deciding the answer arbitrarily.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Actually they make threatening reach not work. OAs work fine, in the sense that they generate a no action MBA properly for the normal trigger.

...Um, targeted by an attack power is the event. Plague went over this... O.o Do you not read anyone's post? Being targeted by the attack power finished. The trigger finished. So now you react. This could not be more clear.
Yeah, it was Threatening Reach that I meant.  Sorry.

It's only clear if you ignore the rules that tell you not to do that.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yeah, it was Threatening Reach that I meant.  Sorry.

It's only clear if you ignore the rules that tell you not to do that.

There is no such rule. There is a rule which says you react immediately after the trigger finishes, even if the action containing the trigger hasn't finished. You know, the one you keep pretending isn't in the RC.