|
3 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2010 - 6:06PM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
|
This thread is really degenerating. Zgrose is making the same argument I've alread made. The RAW just isn't clear cut enough for some of you and that's fine. Wait for interpretation, but you all must have realized by now you are at an impasse that you will not be able to resolve. Either you think the rule for Daze overrides the AP, which again I think is DEAD wrong, or you think that an AP overules the action restrictions in any case that an AP is used. There is no middle ground and no compromise. Neutral corners and wait for WoTC to set you straight one way or the other.
LOL...I love this...all the middle stance attempt while making it clear what you think.
No middle stance. You're wrong, but there is no way to convince you of it. The only thing left is pointless sniping, rehashing, and snark.
LOL...yes I noticed all YOUR snipe in it....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2010 - 6:07PM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2009
|
Well done, nbow get that in the FAQ...or a rules update....actually just a rules update cause I trust the FAQ as much a CS answers. ( I ain't being saucy, I wish they were do clear teh first answer around)
Of course the answer below is no surprise to me, it could it have reasonably been anything else:
CustServ:
I asked:
Please settle a raging long-term debate.
When one is Dazed and uses an Action Point (legal per the FAQ), does one get to actually use the extra action granted by using the Action Point? Some say no - you use the Action Point but can take no extra action because of being Dazed. Some say yes, because, well, the action granted is extra, meaning above and beyond the one action you get from being Dazed.
Jamie answered:
Dazed allows for you to take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). When you use your action point you can then also take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn (you can also take free actions). Basically you can move twice, attack twice, move and attack, etc; so long as you are still following the Dazed rules.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
Jamie
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2010 - 7:31PM
#193
|
|
|
LOL...yes I noticed all YOUR snipe in it....
Exactly...That's all I've got left... No more...
Edit: Artoomis?... is it over...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2010 - 10:24PM
#194
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
LOL...yes I noticed all YOUR snipe in it....
Exactly...That's all I've got left... No more...
Edit: Artoomis?... is it over...
I guess so. We do have an official answer, even if some will refuse to admit/accept it. I would be surprised to see any further clarification as it is really pretty obvious. The concept of getting to use an Action Point and yet not be able to take the extra action is pretty bizarre.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 5:22AM
#195
|
|
|
I will say just because a CS said it doesn't make it true. They have been notorious for giving wrong, inconstant, and really stupid answers.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 6:13AM
#196
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
I will say just because a CS said it doesn't make it true. They have been notorious for giving wrong, inconstant, and really stupid answers.
It would be more accurate to say that they have, on occasion, gotten it wrong. Even then, in most cases, they later corrected themselves.
They are, nonetheless, still an official source for the rules and rules interpretations, though sometimes they will simply choose not to answer and defer to "it's up to your DM and maybe there will be a FAQ or rules update on this topic" sort of answer. That just adds to their credibility, though, as they are trying very hard to give consistent, rules-based answers.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 8:58AM
#197
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
It would be more accurate to say that they have, on occasion, gotten it wrong. Even then, in most cases, they later corrected themselves.
While I would like to agree with you, I should point out that custserv has made a ruling about RPGA treasure bundles last week that contradicts both common sense and the developer team, as well as the way everybody seems to play. This does not help for their credibility.
I think the problem is that custserv makes a big mistake every two or three months, which gets them derided on the forums often enough that it undermines everything else they're trying to say, even though they usually are correct.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 9:04AM
#198
|
|
|
I will say just because a CS said it doesn't make it true. They have been notorious for giving wrong, inconstant, and really stupid answers.
It would be more accurate to say that they have, on occasion, gotten it wrong. Even then, in most cases, they later corrected themselves.
They are, nonetheless, still an official source for the rules and rules interpretations, though sometimes they will simply choose not to answer and defer to "it's up to your DM and maybe there will be a FAQ or rules update on this topic" sort of answer. That just adds to their credibility, though, as they are trying very hard to give consistent, rules-based answers.
I didn't see them showing where they got the information. Where and what book there refering to. They also don't explain themselves beyone yes you can. Seems like they go with what they think is right instead of looking into it
This plus the fact they have a track record of being wrong makes me not want to believe them.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 9:06AM
#199
|
|
|
I will say just because a CS said it doesn't make it true. They have been notorious for giving wrong, inconstant, and really stupid answers.
It would be more accurate to say that they have, on occasion, gotten it wrong. Even then, in most cases, they later corrected themselves.
They are, nonetheless, still an official source for the rules and rules interpretations, though sometimes they will simply choose not to answer and defer to "it's up to your DM and maybe there will be a FAQ or rules update on this topic" sort of answer. That just adds to their credibility, though, as they are trying very hard to give consistent, rules-based answers.
I didn't see them showing where they got the information. Where and what book there refering to. They also don't explain themselves beyone yes you can. Seems like they go with what they think is right instead of looking into it
This plus the fact they have a track record of being wrong makes me not want to believe them.
And the posters on these forums don't have a track record of being wrong? 
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 06, 2010 - 11:14AM
#200
|
|
|
I will say just because a CS said it doesn't make it true. They have been notorious for giving wrong, inconstant, and really stupid answers.
It would be more accurate to say that they have, on occasion, gotten it wrong. Even then, in most cases, they later corrected themselves.
They are, nonetheless, still an official source for the rules and rules interpretations, though sometimes they will simply choose not to answer and defer to "it's up to your DM and maybe there will be a FAQ or rules update on this topic" sort of answer. That just adds to their credibility, though, as they are trying very hard to give consistent, rules-based answers.
I didn't see them showing where they got the information. Where and what book there refering to. They also don't explain themselves beyone yes you can. Seems like they go with what they think is right instead of looking into it
This plus the fact they have a track record of being wrong makes me not want to believe them.
And the posters on these forums don't have a track record of being wrong?
I don't remeber saying that.
The posters on these boards are not employees of WotC. So I don't expect them to be right.
If you look at just this thread people have shown evidence on both sides, page numbers, rules refering to rules. People making points others didn't.
When CS responeded they basically said "this is the way it is" with little to no explantion
Yes I do hold CS to a higher standard because its there job, not posters on these boards
|
|
|
