|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 5:31PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I'm not applying a power. I'm applying an effect that came from a power.
I'm not clear on how you make that distinction. How would you apply a power if not by applying its effect?
Note that the distinction is important when comparing Frost Weapon to Icebound Sigil, though, in that the power comes from the weapon versus the artificer.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 6:35PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I'm not applying a power. I'm applying an effect that came from a power.
I'm not clear on how you make that distinction. How would you apply a power if not by applying its effect?
That is, in fact, a decent question.
A power is that thing that takes requires activation and has an effect. The "effect" isn't the power... the whole thing is, keywords and all.
"apply" is not a valid verb to use with a power. "use" is. (Use, recover, expend, learn, prepare... but not apply).
"Apply" is a valid verb for a modifier, or an effect. So should this nonsence clause be read to mean "You can't use the weapon's powers in conjunction with the attack" or "you can't apply the results of using the weapon's powers in conjunction with the attack"? Neither one is what was written, so both are making assumptions to make things make sense.
I feel that "use" is a better reading, because it's more clearly defined in a game that is, as much as possible for an RPG, rather well defined. It makes less things up. It's a smaller change. And it embodies much of the (assumed) intent; the overwhelming majority of weapon item powers that could affect the attack are not usable.
But going with "use" means that you can stack most elemental weapons with Ki Focuses.
Going with "apply the effect" means you can still use the weapon's power, it just does nothing. I don't know of anything obviously unintended that would result from that.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 7:04PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Well, okay, so the rule does nothing.
Now what?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 7:23PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Well, as I understand it, if there are two ways you can read a game element, and one does nothing, use the other one. I've proposed two readings that do something... one of which stops the vast majority stacking of Ki Focuses and weapon powers, and is a very simple reading away from what was written.
...
It just leaves perhaps the most important stacking of weapon powers and Ki Focuses in place.
So the "now what" would be to submit this to the relevant rules people in (vain) hope of errata.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 7:40PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Except there's not two ways to read it, there's the way it's written, and the way where you substitute one of the words for another one. You can't do that. What justification do you have for your substitution? Why can't I substitute in a different word, to make it the way I want to make it?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 8:49PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Ok, so it's completely non-functional ... ... joining lots of other rules.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 9:09PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Or, you don't demand that the rules system have a rules definition for every single word, and you treat "apply" as it would indicate by being a word. And it would work the way I describe.
My fighter power says "Target: One creature." Well, I know what "creature" and "target" is, but what is "one" ?
Lack of a definition a term is not definition of a lack.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 13, 2012 - 9:48PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
That's doing the exact same thing I am... trying to make meaning out of non-meaning. If I can't do it, because I'm just making stuff up, you can't do it because you're just making stuff up.
Or ... we have to both admit that the rules are less than clear. Which ... happens all the time in this game.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 6:44AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Except you're making stuff up by substituting in another word, whereas I'm using what the word itself means.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
