|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 1:58PM
#11
|
|
|
Alcestis, what would you say about an invisible warlord? The other party members can, in theory, "see" him, but the warlord isn't broadcasting an image for them to see (reflecting any light). Same line of thinking as your "hearing" interpretation.
No they can't. They know where he is, but they can't see him. The rules are really specific about these things.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 1:58PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Alcestis, what would you say about an invisible warlord? The other party members can, in theory, "see" him, but the warlord isn't broadcasting an image for them to see (reflecting any light). Same line of thinking as your "hearing" interpretation.
No, invisible warlords can't grant the bonus. Nor can blinded or deafened creatures receive it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 2:53PM
#13
|
|
|
I dont think Alcetis has any problem with blinded or deafened creatures being excluded from the bonus. The dispute is about the warlord more than about the recipient.
I would also claim that the rules are clear about this:
Unconscious - "... the creature cant take actions ..."
If it cannot take actions, even free ones, then it cannot generate sound. It cannot be heard in the same fashion that an invisible creature cannot be seen.
The rules are clear - if it cant be heard, then no bonus.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 3:04PM
#14
|
|
|
....So you're just making things up then? Right-o. Whether I can make noise has nothing to do with whether or not you can hear me. Period.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 3:24PM
#15
|
|
|
Lets leave out the insults.
If I am silent then you cannot hear me. That is at least part of what being silent means. If I am unable to make a noise, then I am silent and you cannot hear me - by definition.
You cannot hear a statue. At least not without imbibing a substantial quantity of alcohol first.
Whether I can make a noise is fundamental to whether or not you can hear me.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 4:31PM
#16
|
|
|
Lets leave out the insults.
This is Alcestis we're talking about. That's not going to happen.
If I am silent then you cannot hear me. That is at least part of what being silent means. If I am unable to make a noise, then I am silent and you cannot hear me - by definition.
You cannot hear a statue. At least not without imbibing a substantial quantity of alcohol first.
Whether I can make a noise is fundamental to whether or not you can hear me.
Not really. The onus in this case is on the ally, not the Warlord. It doesn't matter whether or not the warlord is making sound; it matters whether or not the ally can hear.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 5:05PM
#17
|
|
|
I would say from the rules that the onus is shared. The requirement is not that the ally "can see and hear", but rather that the ally "can see and hear you (i.e. the warlord)".
It doesn't matter whether the ally can see and hear, if they cannot see or hear the warlord in particular.
Since both the ally and the warlord are mentioned in the requirement, a shared onus appears to me the natural interpretation.
To put this another way, I would say that if you believe otherwise, then the onus is on you to demonstrate your alternative is more reasonble.
Edit: I just read your comment again. I agree that it doesn't matter whether or not the warlord is making a sound, but I would contend that it does matter whether or not the warlord is able to make a sound.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 5:07PM
#18
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
Basically, feel free to houserule on this one. In real terms, if your Warlord is unconscious and locked in a glass case, it makes absolutely no difference to anyone else whether that case happens to be soundproof or not - in fact, it's pretty much impossible to know whether or not it's soundproofed. But by the game rules, you'll react less promptly when entering a combat situation if the glass case is indeed soundproof.
So, either ignore the inconsistency and go with a strict rules interpretation, or go with the minisculely less literal interpretation and assume that in order for you to be able to hear a person, that person has to be able to make noise.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 6:11PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2011
|
I bet there are games out there which have completely ground to a halt over this measly +2 initiative bonus.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 8:07PM
#20
|
|
|
Lets leave out the insults.
Saying you're making things up when you're making things up is only insulting if you realize that is what you're doing and feel guilty about it. So thanks for confirming that for me. The rules are both clear and literal when it comes to sound and sight, whether the Warlord can make noise simply isn't relevant.
@Waxwing: The bonus becomes +Cha or +Int with a feat in Paragon. It is actually one of the strongest class features in the game.
|
|
|
