Community

Apr 18, 2010 -- 1:52PM, Artoomis wrote:

Apr 18, 2010 -- 1:27PM, Rian_king wrote:

he is talking about what the power actually does and how it the power should be played.

We are saying if you take word for word the power instantly kills

we all know the intent was not to instanly kill

we all know it should be played that it doesn't instantly kill something

but only looking at raw it does instantly kill something

Incorrect.  Only looking at RAW it may act in one of two ways.  Instakill is only one of the two legitimate ways to interpret this power.  Once gain, the initial complaint is without merit because the DM used one of  two legitimate interpretations, though maybe he used a third, not legitimate one, but the game effect was the same.

I will say incorrect.  There is only one RAW way of reading it.  You can try to interrupt another way but it makes a lot less sense.

When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder  damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end  of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.

This is what the effect says.  Since the power hits two targets.  The both took damage the other one takes damage.  I just can't see how in can be taken any other way

Apr 19, 2010 -- 1:04AM, Pentagram wrote:

Apr 18, 2010 -- 9:31PM, DropThemBones wrote:

You cannot go off of RaI because you do not actually know what the intention was. You can guess, but you have to know what the rules actually are. To use RaI only is to set yourself up with creating houserules where youare not allowed to make them (if you are a RPGA judge).

As Written is the only clear way to run things, especially in a formal tournament.

RAW is supposed to express RAI in a clear way but don't always do that. A judge isn't expected to be a unthinking code processor though, but be knowable about the system and be able to identify instances where RAW does NOT express RAI. There is no guesswork involved here, even the perpetrator himself understood the intent of the power and knowingly tried to make a case where the judge should rule by RAW rather than RAI when RAI was obvious.

I disagree with your interpretation of a judge. A judge is there to adjudicate the actual rules of the game, not an implied intent of the rules.

RAI:
Versatile was specifically stated by the lead designer of 4e to give its weapon the ability to qualify as a 1 and a 2 handed weapon simultaneously, and thus would have allowed small PCs to use barbarian powers that required 2 handed weapons.

RAW:
Small PCs could not use Versatile weapons to qualify for those weapons

RAI:
Minions are destroyed when they take any damage (except on a miss), though THP is supposed to help them survive. Thsi has been shown to work through adventures and designer comments forums

RAW:
Minions are destroyed when they take any damage (except on a miss).

It is not the judge's job to try and figure out intent, only to use what is written. It is the company's job to get them the right rules to work with, and there is where eratta steps in.