|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:09PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Are you trying to be funny, or did you really not mean to do that?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:14PM
#52
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
Are you trying to be funny, or did you really not mean to do that?
I'm asking in all seriousness. Plaguescarred himself mentioned that "silent" is not a defined term of art, so "silent" simply means "not making noise". If a statue is not silent, it is, by definition, making noise. Are you truly saying that you know of "many" noisy statues?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:23PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"I've not heard of a noisy stature"
Take away the debate for a moment, and that statement should be amusing.
But yes, statues (and other inanimate objects) can and do make noise. Biggest source is thermal expansion, creaking and groaning as materials stretch and compress under temperature change. Solid-cast statues won't make much in the way of noise, but anything assembled will.
Furthermore, if the statue does something as simple as topple over, then it will make noise, because it's not a tree in the forest and there are people around (otherwise we wouldn't be trying to figure out if they get an initiative bonus).
But the true bottom line is this: the rules about rules say that your interpretation of the rules is wrong. There is no argument, no logical persuasion, no deft rhetoric that will ever convince you. There is what the rules say, and that is an axiom. You can argue against it all you wish, but if you ever want to consider yourself as discussing 4e rules, then you have to accept it in the same way that you have to accept that 1+2 = 3 in mathematics.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:30PM
#54
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
Right, so it's the warlord's joints creaking through thermal expansion that inspires his allies to swifter action.
I'm curious: Does it even bother you, on any level, that an ability which requires no sound to activate has differing effects depending upon whether its targets can currently hear that non-existent sound?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:32PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
No, it's not the warlord's creaking joints. I never said that. This is an example of the point you're not getting, and an example of the error you're making. You're making leaps of logic, taking one thing, applying some form of extratextual context to that, and then forming a new conclusion. You can't do that in 4e, at all, ever. You are limited precisely to what is in the text. No more, no less. Until you fully accept what that means, you will continue to make this error.
And no, it doesn't bother me, because we're not talking about how to run a game, but rather what the rules say. There are lots of things the rules say that bother me when applied to games, but none of that matters in determining what the rules say.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 12:43PM
#56
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
No, it's not the warlord's creaking joints. I never said that. This is an example of the point you're not getting, and an example of the error you're making. You're making leaps of logic, taking one thing, applying some form of extratextual context to that, and then forming a new conclusion. You can't do that in 4e, at all, ever. You are limited precisely to what is in the text. No more, no less. Until you fully accept what that means, you will continue to make this error.
Except that the rules don't define everything in mathematical precision, so you can't come to consistent 1+2=3 conclusions if you never look beyond them.
The rules don't define "silent". They don't even define "able to hear", beyond the Perception skill. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that if the warlord is not currently emitting any sound that could be discerned by an ally rolling a natural 20 on his Perception check, that ally is in fact not able to hear the warlord.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 1:13PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"reasonable" arguments aren't rules. The rule says exactly how the feature works, you're the one who is reaching for other things to fill in what you think are logical holes in the rule. They very well may be logical holes in the rule. But it's still the rule, no matter how much you insist it doesn't make sense.
I'm not arguing with the conclusion you've reached so much as the way you arrived at that conclusion.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 2:56PM
#58
|
|
|
Exception based design says things do precisely what they say they do. Nothing in the features requires you be able to make noise, so you don't have to be able to.
"reasonable" arguments aren't rules. The rule says exactly how the feature works, you're the one who is reaching for other things to fill in what you think are logical holes in the rule. They very well may be logical holes in the rule. But it's still the rule, no matter how much you insist it doesn't make sense.
I'm not arguing with the conclusion you've reached so much as the way you arrived at that conclusion.
So following along from what you are saying:
If the warlord is, say, magically silenced so that he is unable to be heard, then his condition matters, because the rule requires that he be able to be heard.
However, if the warlord is magically silenced so that he is unable to make a noise, then his condition is irrelevant, because making a noise is not mentioned in the rules.
That seems weirdly inconsistent. Especially so since "unable to make a noise" results in "unable to be heard".
Now I grant you, there is no rule that says "If you are unable to make a noise then you cannot be heard". But there is also no rule that says "If you are unable to make a noise then you can still be heard". The rules dont define what "can hear you" means.
You seem to be saying that, in the absence of a specific definition of "can hear you" then you can only fail the condition if the specific words "can't hear you" or "is unable to hear you" are used. You cant fail the condition if those circumstances can only be infered from the situation.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 3:38PM
#59
|
|
|
Sigh. Still wrong.
Look. The feature says you have to be able to see and hear the Warlord. That is something you have to be able to do. It has nothing to do with the Warlord. If the Warlord can't make noise, you're fine, because you can hear him. Things literally do precisely what they say they do in 4e. You are inventing the idea that the Warlord has to make noise in order for you to be able to hear him. That is not true. Your ability to hear him has nothing to do with wheather or not he makes noise. Ever. That is the part you're inventing, the feature itself says nothing like that. And one of the tentants of the logic of 4e is that things do only what they actually say they do. If the feature said "All your allies that you yell at when you roll initiative and hear you gain a bonus" then, yes, the Warlord being able to speak+take a free action would matter. That isn't what the feature says.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 3:55AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
That seems weirdly inconsistent.
Yup. And it'd be nice if the rules weren't ever weirdly inconsistent, but they often are, and this is one of those cases.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
