|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 6:17AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I assume Combat Leader wouldn't apply if the Warlord was affected by a silence spell or a sound bubble, if there was any for exemple.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 12:16PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
Did you even read the thread? The question is whether the ally would be able to hear the warlord if he made a noise, not whether the warlord actually can.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 1:15PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Yes i did and i was in fact answering one of the OPs question below, by giving a hypothetical situation where Combat Leader would not apply: Does the bonus apply ALL the time to the Warlord himself, or is there a condition or situation that it would not apply to him?
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 2:09PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
In which case my bad. But it might have been helpful if you'd've quoted him so that people (such as me) didn't misconstrue your answer.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 3:45AM
#35
|
|
|
If the statue was making noise, you could hear it. Whether the statue is making noise (or can) isn't relevant. Once you understand that, you'll understand why you're wrong and your logic is flawed.
That's the crux of the issue. You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise". And if that is what it said, you would be correct. But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 4:16AM
#36
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
If the statue was making noise, you could hear it. Whether the statue is making noise (or can) isn't relevant. Once you understand that, you'll understand why you're wrong and your logic is flawed.
That's the crux of the issue. You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise". And if that is what it said, you would be correct. But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.
To be fair, that extra bit is needed in order for the rule to make the slightest bit of sense. If the warlord doesn't need to issue any sound in order to activate this ability, then why are his allies required to be able to hear him?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:00AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
yep, Alcestis is correct. The language clearly states that you have to be able to see and hear the warlord to get the bonus. The question of if the warlord can make noise or is making noise or not isn't important.
And as MarkB specified.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 10:04AM
#38
|
|
|
yep, Alcestis is correct. The language clearly states that you have to be able to see and hear the warlord to get the bonus. The question of if the warlord can make noise or is making noise or not isn't important.
And as MarkB specified.
Seconded (or is it thirded?).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 4:02PM
#39
|
|
|
[That's the crux of the issue. You understand the rule to be "an ally who can see or hear you if you were making a noise". And if that is what it said, you would be correct. But it doesn't.
That extra bit is a bit you've made up, and it is so ingrained now, you don't even realise that you have made it up.
So still making things up then, rather than admit you're completely and in every way wrong. Right. The rule doesn't say the Warlord has to be able to make noise. Period.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 5:46AM
#40
|
|
|
The rule doesn't say the Warlord has to be able to make noise. Period.
Clause A: Any ally who can see and hear
Clause B: Any ally who can see and hear you
Clause C: Any ally who can see and hear you, if you were able to make a noise.
Clause A would allow you to ignore the warlord completely. He is not even mentioned in the requirement.
Clause C requires the warlord to be present, but his condition can be ignored.
Clause B is the most restrictive, requiring you to be able to see and hear the specific warlord at a specific point in time (when initiative is rolled). Since there is no rule in D&D that states you are able to hear something that is totally unable to make a noise, then this necessarily implies that the condition of the warlord matters, at least to the extent of the ability to make some noise.
Only one of these Clauses matches the actual rule. You may not like it, or you may not think it works in practice. OK. If you think that Clause B necessarily implies Clause C, or that some other rule or principle applies to modify it, make your argument. Otherwise you are making things up that aren't there.
MarkB, I think, is arguing that since there is no (explicit) requirement for the warlord to make a noise for the feature to take effect, then it is incorrect to require the allies to be able to hear the warlord.
(If I have this wrong, MarkB, then I am sorry and please clarify).
This argument states that we should weaken a requirement that is explicitly in the rules (that the allies must be able to hear the warlord) because of the absence of a requirement (that the warlord is not explicitly required to issue a sound for the feature to operate). In logic, arguments from absence are always weaker than arguments from presence, and should certainly not be grounds to change a requirement that is explicitly stated.
Rather, the explicit requirement of being able to hear the warlord in logic necessarily implies the requirement that the warlord is able to make a noise. (Note: it does not necessarily imply that the warlord actually makes a noise, only that he is able to).
To be totally accurate I should extend this argument to cover telepathy, but the basic argument doesn't change.
|
|
|
