|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 1:54PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
I am SO offended I could spit. :P
I've never understood the origins of that phrase.
Off topic alert: In Old English the verb form meant to "eject saliva as a gesture of contempt." So it's not too hard to see the origin of the phrase.  Consider that in other times it was common when speaking of somethign which upset you to spit in response to it's mention. "I should have known it... agents of Vecna were behind this." *ptooie*
Although it's slightly different from the phrase "So mad I could spit nails" which supposedly has its origins in carpentry when it was common to keep whatever nails you were goign to be using in between your teeth, then you'd get tickjed off an have to yell at someone and spit the nails out of your mouth in the process. Although that origin is just speculation AFAIK.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 1:57PM
#122
|
|
|
Thanks Dragon! That actually makes plenty of sense.
Dsalt > I think you would spit 10% more saliva in that case.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 3:11PM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Aye, but that doesn't change the fact that its a longsword being used as an orb/staff/wand for the spell. Which according to the logic of some of the posters here, since an orb wasn't actually used in the casting of the spell, rather a substitute, then one should not benefit from orb/wand/staff-related bonuses or class features. Which is exactly the same manner they are saying that healer's lore works, which simply isn't the case.
Erm, no. The issue isn't that substitution doesn't work in situations like these. It's that the substitution occurring references a target spending a healing surge, which is a clearly defined act that doesn't involve healer's lore in any way. If you have a attack power whose hit line says "the target creature takes damage as if your ally had attacked it" you don't add in your own weapon focus to that damage calculation.
That example doesn't line up with the case we're looking at, though. If you'd activated a power that says "target creature takes X extra damage each time an ally hits it" and then hit using a power whose hit line says "the target takes damage as if an ally had hit it," then the target would take the extra X damage.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 3:20PM
#124
|
|
|
I don't think your example is at all a proper analogy Chaos. If CLW said 'you regain hit points as if a cleric power had allowed you to spend a healing surge' I would agree with your analogy. The 'as if' references the targets healing surge value, that's all it's doing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 4:28PM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
I don't think your example is at all a proper analogy Chaos. If CLW said 'you regain hit points as if a cleric power had allowed you to spend a healing surge' I would agree with your analogy. The 'as if' references the targets healing surge value, that's all it's doing.
That's what some keep saying, but there is no evidence for this view.
Again, it's all academic. The intent is clear and should be run in the way intended.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 10, 2010 - 6:27PM
#126
|
|
|
That's what some keep saying, but there is no evidence for this view.
That's what I disagree with. I can agree that it's possible to read the RAW as allowing Healer's Lore to apply, however, that reading hinges on how what you read the 'as if' as applying to. One perspective compares it strictly to the target's normal healing surge value, the other is where you compare it to cleric powers that allow a surge to be spent. The RAI, which is spelled out in the rules update & from Greg B apparently, are what make the former the clear winner, however, it's still a perfectly valid way to read it even without that RAI for guidance.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 8:02AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
That's what some keep saying, but there is no evidence for this view.
That's what I disagree with. I can agree that it's possible to read the RAW as allowing Healer's Lore to apply, however, that reading hinges on how what you read the 'as if' as applying to. One perspective compares it strictly to the target's normal healing surge value, the other is where you compare it to cleric powers that allow a surge to be spent. The RAI, which is spelled out in the rules update & from Greg B apparently, are what make the former the clear winner, however, it's still a perfectly valid way to read it even without that RAI for guidance.
There are two valid ways to read it, with no evidence within RAW for which one to use.
Of course, we have RAI that is clear, so we know now which way to read it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 8:23AM
#128
|
|
|
There are two valid ways to read it, with no evidence within RAW for which one to use.
Of course, we have RAI that is clear, so we know now which way to read it.
Sorry, I thought you were saying there was only one way to read it RAW because of the no evidence comment.
|
|
|
