Community

Jul 10, 2012 -- 1:27PM, Alcestis wrote:

Jul 10, 2012 -- 12:37PM, AlphatheGreat wrote:

That sloppy post-PHB writers have written things which technically meant something other than what they intended is incontestable.

That it has occasionally been clear what the sloppy writer actually meant to do is fact.  

This is RAI.

You are wrong.

Why you'd limit it to post-PHB I have no idea, plenty of sloppy writing in the PHB.

You seemed to be deifying the authors who wrote the SvG rules, so I explicitly cut out the PHB as they are the same people [/snark].

Jul 10, 2012 -- 1:27PM, Alcestis wrote:

My point is not that RAI isn't sometimes obvious, despite sloppiness. My point is that the Munchkin Fallacy, whenever it is committed, is automatically wrong by RAI because it violates the core philosophy of 4e. Which isn't to say it can't be right for other, actually valid, reasons, but the argument itself is always de facto wrong by the intent the system was designed with. The two issues are not related. A conclusion can be correct for valid reasons, but be validly determined to be incorrect if you choose a different argument with a faulty premise (it would be unsound, obviously). The Munchkin Fallacy is always faulty in 4e, by the way the system is designed, and it was intended to be that way (indeed if that were not true, your statement of the fallacy in the first place wouldn't be rational). Hence, any argument that commits the Munchkin Fallacy is invalid by stated design goals of 4e. That in a specific case you may divine the rule the author intended to write isn't relevant to whether or not, in doing so, you violated the system assumptions. I am extending the necessary corollaries of the Munchkin Fallacy, as stated by you, to incorporate 4e as a system.

You missed my next post, and Mand's.



I'll lay this out very simply.

Consider the following statement:

"Spiked Chain Training adds the stout property to the double weapon, even though it already has the stout property.  Therefore, by RAW and RAI, the properties of the spiked chain are different when wielded as a double weapon than when wielded normally."

This commits the Munchkin Fallacy, as the redundancy of the stout property doesn't necessarily mean that anything actually changes, so the speaker is reading between the lines.

However, he is correct that there are only two reasons to state "gains the Stout property" for an item that already has the stout property:
1. The author is stupid and didn't do his homework.
2. The author assumes it's understood that the weapon lost the stout property somewhere along the line.
If we assumed 1, rules systems wouldn't function anyway, so we won't do that.
So in the case of 2, the author Intended the Rule to change the spiked chain when you wield it differently.  That is, the statement is correct for RAI, and commits the Munchkin Fallacy for RAW.


Your insistence that he can't be correct by RAI is clearly false,
so committing the Munchkin Fallacy does not automatically mean you can't be correct by RAI,
so "any argument that commits the Munchkin Fallacy is automatically invalid by RAI in 4e"
is an incorrect statement.




If you want to say "any argument that commits the Munchkin Fallacy violates the RAI of the "Many Exceptions" rules," that's fine...but it doesn't accomplish much.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Mand12 wrote:

The claim about RAI could be correct, but Munchkin isn't an adequate way of determining it, because 1) does happen, and rather often for the sorts of things where the RAI is unclear.  To do so is pure speculation as to which words you feel like reading in to the text to make it appear that the author's intent lines up with your guess as to RAI.

That's my point though really, that RAI arguments are of a radically different type.  
Ya'll seem so used to evidence being conclusive in RAW that somehow you've forgotten what a RAI discussion even looks like!

RAW: X therefore Y.
RAI: X supports the likelihood of Y.

For RAW we provide proof, and often reach a conclusive result.
For RAI we provide evidence, and rarely reach a conclusive result.

Confounding the two arguments is even more common.
"Here's my RAW argument, and I've even got some RAI evidence, to boot!"
"Your RAW argument fails, and that RAI argument was actually a RAW argument that I'm insisting failed as well."

Jul 10, 2012 -- 2:54PM, Alcestis wrote:

Jul 10, 2012 -- 2:07PM, AlphatheGreat wrote:

Your insistence that he can't be correct by RAI is clearly false,
so committing the Munchkin Fallacy does not automatically mean you can't be correct by RAI,
so "any argument that commits the Munchkin Fallacy is automatically invalid by RAI in 4e"
is an incorrect statement

That isn't what I am saying, so... would encourage you to reread my post.

If you commit a Munchkin fallacy, your argument is invalid by RAI. It doesn't mean the concluson of the argument can't be correct, but the argument itself is wrong by RAI. Because the system was designed a certain way. It isn't deifying anyone to point out they built their system by certain logical precepts and that if you violate those precepts in your argument, you're automatically wrong according to the system's logic.

I see.  So where I was assuming you were making an incorrect point, instead you are making an inane one.

Committing the Munchkin Fallacy means with respect to determining RAW, your statement is invalid.  It says nothing about a statement with respect to determining RAI.

You are saying that violating the RAW of SvG is also violating the RAI of SvG.  Which is one of the most meaningless statements I've heard on the CO, since all it's saying is "SvG means what the authors intended it to mean."  So by RAI, you are saying that a Munchkin Fallacy is invalid by RAI to determine RAW.

The problem is, Alcestis, that you take this inane little point and then say "RAI is against you!" when no one uses the term "RAI" that way.

From anyone else, "The RAI is against you" or "your argument is invalid by RAI" means that "the author's Intent contradicts your statement."  Or more to the point, "your argument is invalid to determine RAI."

If an argument is invalid by the design of the system, it's okay to say that.  It's not okay to start stacking on stuff like "it's against RAI too!!" meaninglessly, especially when that just confuses observers who are still confused about what RAI means in the first place.

Please don't tie the Munchkin Fallacy into your misrepresentations, I worked hard to get it to a place where it could be used effectively.  I'd rather people not start adding ineffective uses like yours to the pot.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 2:07PM, AlphatheGreat wrote:

However, he is correct that there are only two reasons to state "gains the Stout property" for an item that already has the stout property:
1. The author is stupid and didn't do his homework.
2. The author assumes it's understood that the weapon lost the stout property somewhere along the line.
If we assumed 1, rules systems wouldn't function anyway, so we won't do that.
So in the case of 2, the author Intended the Rule to change the spiked chain when you wield it differently.  That is, the statement is correct for RAI, and commits the Munchkin Fallacy for RAW.

Just me chiming back in. The 'author' in this case was not the guy whote wrote the article. He did not add this. This was added later by the errata. Wizards felt the need to clarify that point. My argument is that this shows that the phrasing of this feat sets up an either/or because if it worked the way Alcestis and Mand12 argue, that errata is completely unneeded to that specific property. Wizards purposely went back and clarified with errata for a reason.

That is the basis of my RAI argument. Not just simply number 2.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 1:26PM, Koshinuke wrote:

Spiked Chain

What I have placed emphasis on are things that had to be added in the feat.  

What you did was thinking everything is 'in addition' to. The argument is that it sets up an "either or" situation as I just noted above and is the argument in the end. The reason why it mentions the damage is because they had to specify the damage for each end. 

They did the same thing with staff fighting where they specified that each end of the staff, if you use it as a double weapon, does 1d8.  They didn't change the proficiency and they didn't change the reach.  They specifically added properties to each end, stout to the primary, off-hand to the secondary.

Yes the argument is that they had to add stout because when you wield it as a double it is not a 2 handed weapon anymore, with your prvious part of your post you show it all as one stat block...if that was true than adding stout is not needed. My explanation shows why.

They did not remove flail.  They added Light blade to primary end and to secondary end.  There is no wording anywhere that states that it stops being a flail.

It is a flail as a 2 handed, when you wield it as a double weapon it is 2 light blade ends.

If you really want to nitpick, they say that each "end" is a light blade.  What about the chain in the middle that connects the light blades.  Is that also considered a light blade?  Or can that still be what makes it still a flail.

No, and you can't use real world logic for this. 

Jul 10, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Mand12 wrote:

The presence of errata does not necessarily mean a change in the functionality of the element in question.  Sometimes it does, sometimes it's simply clarification, sometime it's redundant reinforcement that isn't strictly necessary.  You cannot use that as evidence, and even moreso you cannot use that as an analogy for other rules.  Improper analogies are a Munchkin fallacy.

I am not sure why you would sum up everything that has been wrong on your side of the argument in one post but ok...

It is not a violation of munchkin fallacy, the person who wrote the thing agrees. It is not the basis of my argument it is merely a supporting fact. Those are perfectly valid.  Quoting alpha: "However, using parallels to argue in favor of a RAI interpretation is valid, if generally insufficient alone."

You can argue RAI all day, and I won't even really dispute you all that much if you want to say that "it's not a flail anymore" is RAI.  But you weren't claiming that, and RAW has much tighter standards.

Strict reading of the raw can be in my favor as well. The statements 'treated as a double weapon' and 'both ends are a light blade' are exclussive statements that set up a specific rules as such under SvG rules. This grammatically valid, supported under SvG, and supported by the fact that errata was needed to be added for the former argument. 

And again, you continue to repeat statements without support.  "It is a flail as a 2 handed, when you wield it as a double weapon it is 2 light blade ends."  Continuing to restate this is not an argument.  You still have not shown that the weapon group is removed.

Yes I have, I have shown that it can be read to remove flail and two-handed weapon. Wizards saw this too and thus had to add the stout property. You just can't fathom that explanation, which is not my problem. 

Can you be right? sure, can I be right? yes. The rule needs to be clarified. Preferrably with 2 stat blocks for which way you wield it. Which was my point from the beginning.