|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 3:35AM
#381
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
Compendium is specifically not a rules source. Goes errata > FAQ > books. It meets the criteria. 1.) Is an attack power. 2.) The Power has an Attack and/or Target line.
It isn't "this line" has an effect it is "the whole power." I'm not saying I'd ever run it that way, I'm saying that the FAQ makes that the RAW. Just another ill-thought out reaction to their own screw up.
Oh! Anything with a secondary attack, the secondary attack is not an attack, because it isn't the initial use of the power.
I disagree with FAQ > books. Do you have something specific to back this up, or is it just your personal preference/belief?
FAQ is put out by CS with somewhat more vetting than their typical responses, but still it's CS not the authors and not the update team. Last time I disagreed with FAQ (or perhaps just how the FAQ was being misinterpretted) the update team later came out on my side. 1 out of 1 does not make a trend however, so we'll see.
In any case I wouldn't exactly call MM not breaking Greater Invis broken compared to Cunning Sneak + Shadowwalk (every movement of 3+ squares lets you become hidden with no stealth penalty for movement, all day, every day. And you can make striker level sneak attacks rather than nonrolled damage.
We have a FAQ entry now so we know what CS's final answer is (barring further updates), but to my reading it seems blatantly contradictory to the books and to me updates > books >> FAQ > CS. Of course, all the arguments have been hashed out pretty well so no need to reiterate them.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2010 - 1:31PM
#382
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
I disagree with FAQ > books. Do you have something specific to back this up, or is it just your personal preference/belief?
It must be a personal belief. Books > FAQ any day of the week, and yes that's a personal opinion. The only commentary I've seen on this is in regard to the CB though, which was to the effect of Books > CB.
Cunning Sneak + Shadowwalk (every movement of 3+ squares lets you become hidden with no stealth penalty for movement, all day, every day
Every Move Action of 3+ squares, not every movement. Cunning Sneak only works with Move actions, not all movement.
There is an initial effect with no target or attack line, and then later you can make an attack. I don't think there's much support to say the FAQ means the initial effect is an attack.
The support is the litteral wording of the FAQ. Forms are an Attack Power that have an Attack line and a target. The requirement exactly as written isn't that an initial use has an Attack Line or Target (which obviously doesn't even make sense), but that the attack power has it. The qualifier is on the power itself, not some subportion of it. Obviously this is overly nit-picky, but hey that's where the fun is at. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2010 - 2:38PM
#383
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Obviously this is overly nit-picky, but hey that's where the fun is at.
I guess that was the point I was aiming for.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2010 - 1:52AM
#384
|
|
|
I disagree with FAQ > books. Do you have something specific to back this up, or is it just your personal preference/belief?
FAQ is put out by CS with somewhat more vetting than their typical responses, but still it's CS not the authors and not the update team. Last time I disagreed with FAQ (or perhaps just how the FAQ was being misinterpretted) the update team later came out on my side. 1 out of 1 does not make a trend however, so we'll see.
LFR DMs are told to give that order of precedence to the rules for LFR tables. And the FAQ is actually written and approved by developers, it is just generally generated by a lot of people asking CS the same question.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2010 - 9:34AM
#385
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I disagree with FAQ > books.
It's more a matter of FAQ > us... i.e. if we interpret the books as saying one thing, but the FAQ says it means another, the FAQ wins. That said, the FAQ is meant to clarify rather than change the rules. If a FAQ answer genuinely conflicts with the rules on a subject that wasn't open to interpretation/debate, we've written in before and had them fix it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2010 - 12:52PM
#386
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2009
|
I disagree with FAQ > books.
It's more a matter of FAQ > us... i.e. if we interpret the books as saying one thing, but the FAQ says it means another, the FAQ wins. That said, the FAQ is meant to clarify rather than change the rules. If a FAQ answer genuinely conflicts with the rules on a subject that wasn't open to interpretation/debate, we've written in before and had them fix it.
There have been rules totally changed by an FAQ. Damage of a shard type splitting the damage in half for the purposes of resistances was removed in an FAQ if memory serves.
Further, if CS is a rules source then all rules are legal rules: just ask CS the question until you get the answer you want: it's different every time! Yes, they get it right every one-in-a-while, but then again an infinite number of monkeys banging on typewriters will write the complete works of William Shakespeare every once in a while too.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2010 - 2:16PM
#387
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
I disagree with FAQ > books. Do you have something specific to back this up, or is it just your personal preference/belief?
FAQ is put out by CS with somewhat more vetting than their typical responses, but still it's CS not the authors and not the update team. Last time I disagreed with FAQ (or perhaps just how the FAQ was being misinterpretted) the update team later came out on my side. 1 out of 1 does not make a trend however, so we'll see.
LFR DMs are told to give that order of precedence to the rules for LFR tables. And the FAQ is actually written and approved by developers, it is just generally generated by a lot of people asking CS the same question.
Rules Updates and FAQs
Periodically, Wizards of the Coast will release rules updates with corrections to existing rules, or a player/DM will inquire through a specific official channel to get a clarification on an existing rule. When there is
contradiction or confusion on a ruling at a table, the DM is the final arbiter, although the most recent rules should be used when possible. The following are considered official rules sources for RPGA play:
• Printed rulebooks
• Official D&D rules updates (available at www.dungeonsanddragons.com; click on “Products,” then “Updates”)
• D&D Rules Compendium (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com)
• D&D Character Builder (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com)
• Clarifications issued through the official Game Support team at Wizards of the Coast
• RPGA Character Creation Guide (this document)
• Updates posted on the official Wizards website (through D&D Insider or as news items)
This is the latest CCG. no order of precedence is given, except that the 'most recent rules should be used when possible'. The FAQ is not mentioned specifically, but it is issued through the 'official Game Support team' (aka custserv).
So it is fair to say they should be taken into consideration, and I will concede that they have a plausible claim to presedence in this case due to being the most recent.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2010 - 3:44PM
#388
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2009
|
It's more a matter of FAQ > us... i.e. if we interpret the books as saying one thing, but the FAQ says it means another, the FAQ wins. That said, the FAQ is meant to clarify rather than change the rules. If a FAQ answer genuinely conflicts with the rules on a subject that wasn't open to interpretation/debate, we've written in before and had them fix it.
I like this. Very well said mvincent.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 04, 2010 - 1:16PM
#389
|
|
|
Honestly, the "Greater Invisibility ends if magic missile is an attack" seems like the most relevant factor to me. Otherwise, a wand wizard can just hide 100% of the time.
Edit: Besides which, the biggest argument against magic missile as an attack is this inevitable shot nonsense. Basically, what need to be errata'd is inevitable shot-and anything else that says "when you do not hit." It's clear that these lines are just Purple Prose for saying "You miss" but their technical definition does, indeed, mean "when you make an attack power that doesn't hit." Bleh.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 04, 2010 - 2:06PM
#390
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
It's clear that these lines are just Purple Prose for saying "You miss" but their technical definition does, indeed, mean "when you make an attack power that doesn't hit." Bleh.
It isn't Purple Prose. There is a big difference for Close and Area attacks. For that matter, if it refers to the attack power as opposed to an attack, there is a big difference for Ranged and Melee attacks that have multiple attacks.
|
|
|
