|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 11:36PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
@Rancid_Rogue: is your objection specific to the fact that Lyrandar uses the word "bonus," and bonus is generally only defined in terms of rolls? Or is it because the damage is being dealt to a creature that you never attacked? Or something else?
I'm trying to see your perspective here.
I am okay with you saying my argument is stupid, or commits the munchkin fallacy, or any other bad thing you want. Particularly if you give a reason/explanation for it.
However, I will ignore any post that calls me stupid, or a munchkin, or what have you. Not because it bothers me; I've just found that people only start name-calling when that's the best argument they have left.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:03AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2012
|
From what I gather, he is stating that the "bonus" is A) only applied to the first target, B) only applied to the target you hit, C) bonuses are things applied to damage rolls, and D) that the 1d8 damage to the original target and the +cha damage to an adjacent enemy is a single instance of damage and therefore you would not add the bonus damage to the adjacent enemy even though it is lightning damage.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:04AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2011
|
That said, there's also no rule supporting the assumption that Cleave-style riders are subject to any bonus at any time.
Not an assumption, welcome to exception based design. Enjoy your stay.
Also daggers are never thrown simulatneously. You throw, draw a new dagger, throw, etc., if it is non-magical or throw, catch the return, throw, catch the return, etc. The drawing is part of the action to make the attack, the catching is a free action.
This is silly. You concede that secondary damage rolls, which use identical wording, would get it, and you've conceded that Lyrander applies to things that aren't damage rolls. Those two statements taken together are all the evidence needed to make a valid argument that Lyrander works the way everyone but you is saying it does. Whereas your actual argument (what little there is of it besides "I can't find a rule that covers every possible scenario in an exception based design system") has so little content as to not even be considered an argument.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 5:46AM
#94
|
|
|
I still think that it would be better to have the calculations both ways so that way we can leave the argument for a rules forums and let the real meat of the discussion continue.
Great now I have to look into my OP to friendliness ratio...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:22AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
That said, there's also no rule supporting the assumption that Cleave-style riders are subject to any bonus at any time.
There is no assumption, it's what the feature of Lyrandar Wind-Rider says it does. You don't assume that Acid Orb deals acid damage, it deals acid damage because it says it does.
You're making the claim that the text of the feature is somehow not applicable, because there isn't a rule that says it's applicable. That's not how exception-based design works. Your argument isn't valid in our system of rules. The text of a particular feature is the first thing you look at - then you look to see if there are any rules that would invalidate that text. If there is not a specific prevention of the feature from working, such as a free action shift while you're prone for example, then the feature works. You don't have to get permission from the Rules Compendium to let your feature work as it is written. Features, powers, feats, items, etc. break the rules. Says so in PHB under Three Basic Rules.
If you're going to continue this "debate" you would do well to take a refresher on the truly fundamental system assumptions. Go read Three Basic Rules (well, the first two).
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:04AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2009
|
Not an assumption, welcome to exception based design.
That would be a valid argument if and only if there were no way for Storm Adept to work except by breaking the general rules. If Storm Adept can work within the general rules --- and it can, by being applied to the damage to the target --- then the standard for it to be an exception becomes explicitly stating that it's an exception.
Your next argument is going to be something to the effect of "but it does state that it is an exception by not requiring a die roll." Clearly that makes it apply to tricked-out Brutal Barrages, Magic Missiles, etc. But it still does not directly address the primary question of whether Cleave-style riders are ever subject to any bonus of any variety.
Storm Adept can co-exist with either rules reading without being broken. It doesn't have to be an exception. Again, I fully understand that you see it as such and even tend to agree. But I can see the well-reasoned argument against. That's all I'm saying.
This is silly. You concede that secondary damage rolls, which use identical wording, would get it,
 Secondary damage rolls are specifically addressed in the rules! Cleave-style effects are conspicious in their absence from that same passage. How is that not relevant?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:11AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Please go read Three Basic Rules.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:28AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2009
|
Please go read Three Basic Rules.
I read the RC version before my last post. It still says game elements can break the general rules. It still doesn't say that they must.
Look, I've read law and research in multiple fields. I'm particularly experienced in spotting every possible interpretation of a given text. I'm also trained in parsing text from zero assumptions, because there is no common law. Even the Système international d'unités has its gray areas.
I've posted the stats for Static Charge both with and without the LWR rider applied to the adjacent target. I am perfectly fine with a given DM using either reading of the rules.
What I've grown intolerant of is the One True Reading conceit on this board. Sure, there are trolls and young players who are difficult to deal with. But let's not get dogmatic. Ultimately, RAW is whatever the DM at a given table says it is. He is going to see some things differently than you do as a player, and it's best to approach the game respecting that that's part of the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:40AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
there is no common law
I object! Here in the UK we have had a common law for over a 1000 years!
And if I may make a serious point, why do you say younger players would be harder to deal with than older players? I must assume you mean newer players, but as I lawyer you could never parse words like that. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 7:58AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2009
|
I object! Here in the UK we have had a common law for over a 1000 years!
And any day now you're going to finally get it all written down, yes? 
And if I may make a serious point, why do you say younger players would be harder to deal with than older players? I must assume you mean newer players
Well, there are certain approaches to both learning style and (particularly) syntax that tend to be both hard to stomach and more common among the young. But your point has merit.
|
|
|
