Community

Jul 10, 2012 -- 5:12PM, Tektonik wrote:

It doesn't need to.

Actually, it would need to in order for you to be correct.  The weapon, the spiked chain, generally is a flail.  Specifically, with spiked chain training, you can use it as a double weapon with each end as a light blade doing 2d4, however, this specific statement is not enough to make it stop being a flail because the feat never specifically states the spiked chain is no longer a flail therefore it is still a flail.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 3:49PM, AlphatheGreat wrote:

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.

You're welcome to have whatever opinion you like of my point... but calling it inane doesn't make it untrue. I'll repeat: you clearly don't understand what I am saying, I'd encourage you to reread my posts. You can't argue that the system isn't intended to work a certain way, because for one it was built that way and for another the designers were very clear, both in the books and in interviews when 4e came out, that it was designed a certain way.

Again, it isn't "The RAI is against you." It is "any time you commit the Munchkin Fallacy, your argument is automatically wrong by RAI." Not the conclusion, the argument. You could slot in "developer intent" if it makes you feel better. I can hardly be responsible for people being confused because they don't understand what RAI means, either, but I think it is extremely disingenuous to say no one uses RAI to say that the game was built a certain way. Primarily because I see it used that way a dozen times a day. Any time someone looks at a non-functional power and says it was intended to work, you're making a RAI argument about the system.

It is great that you put some effort into posting a thread as a community resource. One of the things that happens when you provide a community resource is people take it further and use it. The strange thing here is that you and I agree on a great deal of the points you're making, they just aren't contradicting my points because you're contradicting an argument I'm not making. You wrote the Munchkin Fallacy assuming the premises could only be used for small situations. My point is when you apply it to the whole system and reason it out, you wind up with some interesting conclusions about the kinds of arguments that can and can't be valid for determining RAI and RAW both. Which is a useful thing to do.

Jul 10, 2012 -- 7:49PM, hh2k3 wrote:

It seems that your point is that, when using the weapon as a double weapon, it's treated as two light blades, and no longer a flail.  What happens if you have a flail-only enchantment on the weapon?  Does it no longer get, say, the +6 enhancement bonus since it's now an invalid weapon type for its enchantment?  Wouldn't it have to still be a flail to get that bonus?

Short answer: being "flail-only" is just a restriction on what you can initially enchant with it. There's no other meaning attached, so changing the type afterward would not affect anything.

Example: an urgrosh has an axe end and a spear end. It can be enchanted as an axe. Even when you attack with the spear end, it still benefits from the enchantment - it doesn't fail just because the enchantment is "axe-only."