Community

Dec 2, 2009 -- 4:32AM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

Dec 2, 2009 -- 4:02AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

I knew the counter arguement would be "That text doesn't matter" It doesn't over ride, it clarifies. You can try and dismiss it if you want, but it's a rule, its there in the game, it's not flavor text, it comes before the power block.

That text doesn't clarify, it explains one possible use of the power.

You continually ignore the counter-point of Healing Word and Lay on Hands.  Those show exactly how the additional text explains one possible use of the associated power.

Since some of the people on this thread, I have on block, I'm not sure what you mean by the counter arguement of healing word/Lay on hands. It's not a mark, so not sure why it's being brought up. Sounds like an attempt to bring in a different subject to create a strawman arguement.

I saw lots of stuff about goats, and didn't bring that up, so how come you don't try and derail my view because I'm not talking about goats. So I'm not ignoring it, I'm sticking to the real subject, of marking an ally.

There would be no reason to point out that a mark could be also be used on an emeny. That's your reason that text exists? Can I play the semantics game now and say, the text doesn't say it can ALSO be placed on enemies.

I mean, you really think they need to explain that marks can be used on enemies, because a person might not realize they could do that? Generally when you are explain other uses of something, it comes after, it's generally not the first thing you mention about the power.

Again, every mark power has qualifying text saying marks are placed on enemies. So it pretty clear the rules and intent of marks are for enemies.

Dec 2, 2009 -- 6:00AM, Tichrimo wrote:

Lay on hands et al. are being brought up because they are other examples where the class feature text contradicts the corresponding power block.  Arguments of RAI and/or an unwritten precedence rule are being drawn accordingly.  Carry on.

Ok, I guess I will bite.






So what's the contradiction between the text before each power block?

Dec 2, 2009 -- 6:47AM, Makabriel wrote:

Dane, pickup the actualy PHB and go to page 61 and look at Healing Word and compare it to the stat block.

I don't need to look at the players handbook (But I did before I posted those screen shots to make sure). The wording in the players handbook and online are exactly the same.

You mean, because it doesn't include the cleric as a possible target in the first text, but does in the power block?

So, basically, what it comes down it is healing word is wrong, but not lay on hands or divine challenge. 

Under this way of thinking, I can take any entry that is confusing or contradictory, and say "Because so and so is worded wrong, I want to use this other power this way"

I can see your arguement, and why you would think that, but all you've shown is that the books aren't perfect. But the books are often clear on intent. If the books were 100% correct, there wouldn't be errata.

It's very clear the intent of marks is for enemies. They all contain, outside of the flavor text, that they can be placed on enemy/foe/attacker. I don't think that's to hard to accept.

But look, if you want to play that you can place your marks on allies to over ride marks placed on monsters, nothing is stopping you. Though I'm sure that once your DM's start making encounters with mobs that can mark, and do the same thing, it won't be such a clever idea.

Dec 1, 2009 -- 1:47PM, Suoitidure wrote:

It is an allowance. Without other rules saying the warden can mark any creature, the warden is limited to marking just enemies. The statement itself is not the limiting factor--the rules as a whole are determining what can and cannot be marked by a warden.

If divine challenge did not exist in the power block and it still had the "you can mark enemies" statement, then you could only mark enemies because no where else does it say you can mark anything.

Since it is in a power block and since that power block lets you target a creature (and not only an enemy) and since the class feature text does not, in any way, override what you can and cannot mark, you can mark any creature (apart from yourself, due to the "close" range rules).

That is an elegant argument. But man, why would anyone write a rulebook like that, where the same sentence is an all-encompassing rule for wardens and not for paladins.

Wardens: I use power A to mark goats. Can I mark trees?
GM: No, this power allows you to mark goats.
Paladins: I use power A to mark goats. Can I mark trees?
GM: Unlike the Warden, your marking rules are defined later.
Swordmage: I use power A to mark foes.
GM: what's a foe?

For those who don't like goats! Goats = enemies (for they are the enemy of all mankind) and Trees = allies.

I guess my main issue comes up nicely in Oath of Enmity.

"Your god gives you the power to strike down your chosen prey." Is flowery description, and mechanically irrelevant.

"You gain the oath of enmity power." Is a rule. Very specific, you gain this power, see power for details.

On the surface I like Suo's argument of allowances.  But I don't think "Your god gives you the power to strike down your chosen prey" is an allowance either, as "chosen prey" is never defined. (just like "grant their comrades extra resilience" is a flowery description of nothing). I guess Suo would tell me it ultimately doesn't matter, whether its a description or allowance we have the power text to refer to.

My issue is that sometimes class features are concrete rules that tell me everything that a feature can do (Fighter's Combat Challenge), and other times its an allowance of a subset and I have to refer to other text to get the "real" rules (Divine Challenge), and other times the text of the class feature is mechanically irrelevant flowery descriptions (Healing Word). The weakness of this argument is that I can't tell you when a class feature is a "full" rule, a "see the power" rule or a flowery description with any consistent logic. Which leads me to believe that class features are inconsistently written and left largely to the reader's interpretation.

According to Customer Service there is no official answer to the situation described by the OP, nor could they see any benefit in doing so. The matter has been passed on to the developers.

Do I think you should be able to mark your allies? hell no. If you could then all defenders would be able to do it (which they can't). I believe it to be an exploit, and way for paladins to cheaply remove enemy's marks. Is it prohibited by RAW, likely not. But, I would house-rule that out in an instant.