Author Topic: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers  (Read 33695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2008, 04:56:16 AM »
I find your full argument to be simply warped.

You've yet to show how, and you're the one who wouldn't let this stay contained to PMs.

As for the summary you listed here, it's a woefully inadequate assessment of the situation.

Not really. That summary is everything you need to know about the situation unless you're going to take it into RaI.

Or, if you want to argue over the semantics of something in either ability, we can go down that road for the ten thousandth time, but your opinion of the intent will still not change the actual written wording of the abilities, their mechanical relations, nor the fact that the FAQ does not have the power to change them.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2008, 05:33:25 AM »
You've yet to show how, and you're the one who wouldn't let this stay contained to PMs.
Just what is that supposed to mean?  You're making strawman arguments and stop reading my posts after "X-Codes" and you have the gall to make an attempt at a lame, back-handed insult?  Grow up already.

First off, my argument doesn't involve the RAI at all.  Even if you stick your head out the window and shout it over and over again won't make that true.  My point of view is that the ability, AS WRITTEN, simply doesn't specify one way or another.  I can read the ability in a way where it says it doesn't change the constraints on this particular AC bonus but simply changes the number used, and to me it seems no more or less reasonable than your own position.  Because the meaning of the text, AS WRITTEN, is ambiguous, the Sage can make a clarification of it in the FAQ and have that answer seen as RAW.

As for why I feel your position is warped, the assumption that changing the source also changes the limits imposed on the source is shaky at best, if not an outright logical fallacy.  Further, the assumption that the line about retaining bonuses to AC actually supports the argument that other limits placed on the Dex to AC bonus don't apply is absolutely logical fallacy.  In other words, I see no reasonable means of thinking that connects your evidence to your conclusion.

Finally, I find it laughable is that you're speaking of me arguing over semantics and RAI at the same time.  Semantics are rules, AS WRITTEN; that's been universally accepted over and over again by people who have been shown to have the right point of view on a subject in addition to many people that don't.  I find the fact that you do not accept such as extremely telling.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2008, 06:05:20 AM »
Just what is that supposed to mean?

That you've brought nothing to back up your own claims nor to fault my own, yet still dragged this discussion back into the light of day despite being asked not to.

the ability, AS WRITTEN, simply doesn't specify one way or another.

Yes, it does. It specifies that you gain a Con bonus. That's all it needs to specify for us to know that the ability is not limited by Max Dex, since Max Dex doesn't limit Con bonuses.

I can read the ability in a way where it says it doesn't change the constraints on this particular AC bonus but simply changes the number used

No, you can't. Because it specifies that you are now using a different bonus. This different bonus already exists, and nowhere in any of the rules that apply to that already existing bonus are the limitations of the old one mentioned.

the assumption that changing the source also changes the limits imposed on the source is shaky at best, if not an outright logical fallacy.

It's not shaky at all when both sources used have preexisting rules and we switch between them. It would, in fact, by the warped conclusion that we would not use the preexisting rules for the new source, since it is not specified that the rules stay the same despite the source changing.

Further, the assumption that the line about retaining bonuses to AC actually supports the argument that other limits placed on the Dex to AC bonus don't apply is absolutely logical fallacy.

It goes out of it's way to say when it's limited in the same ways as the old source. That, in fact, does suggest that that is the only similarity in limits (or that it's so poorly written that the rules point to that despite the author's intent), otherwise it would simply say, essentially, "still limited as the original source."

Finally, I find it laughable is that you're speaking of me arguing over semantics and RAI at the same time.

Actually, I mentioned them separately. See, because that summary could well still apply (and it does unless you want to try houseruling the abilities), but you could (and sadly have) still argue semantics of something else there to try to suggest that your ideas are indeed supported.

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2008, 06:19:14 AM »
I got as far as
Quote
Then I was like "omfg, you can add your entire dexterity score to your AC!".  :D

Anyway. On one hand there is a guy who has a history of complaining about some guy's interpretation of rules being flat out wrong because they disagree with his claims. The same guy also claims there is no middle ground, no such thing as a foggy or even a hard to understand rule either despite the numerous examples of contradiction found within the books that require an opinion, and thus is fallible, on them in order to solve. But hey, he is right because he says so (see also the queen that thought the world is flat).

Then on the other hand there is a guy(s) who actually gets paid by the book producers, who most likely has met and has phone numbers to the guys that created it, to provide their answers which gets hosted on the official website as an official FAQ about rule interpretations.

Guess which one I plan to ignore.
Don't like it?
Then put in an application at wizards, dazzle then with your brilliance and start making money now. If your right even half as much as you say you are I'm sure you'll get hired and get to fix all those little rulings you hate. Otherwise, leave the ego at the door. Your words are opinions and are not to be confused with facts.

As for the subject it's self. Some of the Sage's rulings do belong in the errata instead of the FAQ. But if WotC's setup is anything even remotely close to the crap they call paper work around here then I compliantly understand why they don't. In fact, I feel sorry for them, but that goes in the 'people that should die' thread instead of here.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2008, 06:50:06 AM »
*stuff*
Even if you stick your head out the window and shout it over and over again that won't make it true.

Assuming you are a reasonable person, the fact that we have had this argument over the meaning of the rules text proves my point that the text is ambiguous and makes the FAQ ruling have the same force as RAW.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2008, 07:59:10 AM »
No matter whether the rules is clear or unclear, the FAQ or the Sage still can only clarify what they think the rule should be - and that doesn't make an errata.

And don't kid yourself that they'll go and ask the original authors. If they did, the rulings wouldn't generally look like they do.

End of the matter is: You don't like a rule (or whatever), don't use it, or change it to your liking. It's bad for discussions on the internet, but it certainly makes life easier. It's a GAME.

Kaelik

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #46 on: November 06, 2008, 10:09:52 AM »
My point of view is that the ability, AS WRITTEN, simply doesn't specify one way or another.

AS WRITTEN it does not specify one way or another whether Monks gain full Wizard casting. If it does not say something anywhere in any book, then that something is not the case.

Assuming you are a reasonable person, the fact that we have had this argument over the meaning of the rules text proves my point that the text is ambiguous and makes the FAQ ruling have the same force as RAW.

Assuming you are a reasonable person, the fact that some people think Obama is a secret Muslim means that whether he is or not is ambiguous.

No, bad X-Code, having an opinion does not make it valid. Some people are just wrong.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #47 on: November 06, 2008, 11:29:59 AM »
Hmm...
After reading all this... well its a vast tagent about that ac bonus but I suppose since we're talking about the validity of the answer... may as well use that as an example.
*Ahem*
After reading all this and the associated arguments. I agree with:
Ejothimms.

About the specific con to ac thing. Your argument actually seems more consitent and resonable so, well you won me over, sir.

Futher, I really thought about what x-codes and even what Sro_lost just said.

Basically, this... despite the sage working for Wotc it doesn't make his iterpretations more valid than anyone elses *At this time* because Wotc doesn't support 3.5 really.
What I mean by that is this...
Officiality ceases to matter when there are no "official" 3.5 events. At this point you're belaboring you point for simple bragging rights or to say "I told you so". It's petty and small in a way.
Moreover, about the agree/disagree with the sage... Frank has always been smarter than the sage.
Frank and K got banned years ago because he was just more correct in his interpretations of the rules than the sage was. Course there is a new sage or sages, same idea applies though, each of us chooses the interpretation that suits us best and really untill you're dm'ing it you don't really get to call that.
Oh you could leave the table behind it I suppose....

I find the "validity" of the sages answers to be all "suggestions" and thus no more valid than anyone elses suggestions, as there is no "official 3.5" stuff since there's 4.0 now.

That last 3.5 sage work is what I call a parting shot. Like what robbypants was saying just a final "fuck ya'll" to the people who still want to play this game.

It is funny to watch this fight go back and forth like an abortion argument though...
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2008, 03:31:49 PM »
I got as far as
Quote
Then I was like "omfg, you can add your entire dexterity score to your AC!".  :D

I'm going to skip the English lesson and skip straight to the rules lawyering. Even if that's what was meant, RoS doesn't have the power to make that change to how basic AC works, so it has to be talking about Dexterity bonus.

The same guy also claims there is no middle ground, no such thing as a foggy or even a hard to understand rule either despite the numerous examples of contradiction found within the books that require an opinion, and thus is fallible, on them in order to solve.

Wonder who that was. Either way, the mods must have deleted his posts.

Since I know you're not outright lying about me, as I have, in this very thread, stated that there are many such ambiguous rules.

But this is not one of them.

Then on the other hand there is a guy(s) who actually gets paid by the book producers, who most likely has met and has phone numbers to the guys that created it, to provide their answers which gets hosted on the official website as an official FAQ about rule interpretations.

So if went around saying the world was less than ten thousand years old, dinosaur bones were placed on this earth to trick us, and everyone who doesn't agree is an evil person who needs to be killed, the fact that I was getting paid to do it and had talked to guys who wrote about it would make me correct???

Just because others share my opinions and give me money for them does not make those opinions correct.

Your words are opinions and are not to be confused with facts.

Neither are anyone else's. Yet still so many do.

But this matter isn't an opinion any more than the fact that 2+3=/=1.

As for the subject it's self. Some of the Sage's rulings do belong in the errata instead of the FAQ.

And those ruling cannot take affect except as a houserule until they are in the errata because of how the rules themselves weigh in on how new sources work with old ones.

Such as the actual ruling from the Sage, suggesting that Max Dex limits Deepwarden because Max Dex limits all ability scores.

This is 100% incorrect as anyone who can read the Max Dex entry can easily see.

This ruling is invalid without being placed in PHB errata.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2008, 03:38:33 PM »
Quote
So if went around saying the world was less than ten thousand years old, dinosaur bones were placed on this earth to trick us, and everyone who doesn't agree is an evil person who needs to be killed, the fact that I was getting paid to do it and had talked to guys who wrote about it would make me correct???

Just because others share my opinions and give me money for them does not make those opinions correct.
WIN.
 :lmao Ohhh I've seen that guy on you tube! His argument also says "Dinosaurs" = "Dragons" and that they co-existed with man.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2008, 03:47:06 PM »
Quote
So if went around saying the world was less than ten thousand years old, dinosaur bones were placed on this earth to trick us, and everyone who doesn't agree is an evil person who needs to be killed, the fact that I was getting paid to do it and had talked to guys who wrote about it would make me correct???

Just because others share my opinions and give me money for them does not make those opinions correct.
WIN.
 :lmao Ohhh I've seen that guy on you tube! His argument also says "Dinosaurs" = "Dragons" and that they co-existed with man.


There is no saving throw for stupidity. Carry on.
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2008, 04:08:10 PM »
Quote
There is no saving throw for stupidity. Carry on

Which is why we debate post-3.5 rulings by an unknown sage...
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2008, 06:59:39 PM »
Just because others share my opinions and give me money for them does not make those opinions correct.
Just because you are not an official source and say you are right does not mean you are either.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

AfterCrescent

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 4220
  • Here After
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2008, 07:03:23 PM »
What? When did he say he was an official source?

Pull shit out of your ass much? :rolleyes
The cake is a lie.
Need to play table top? Get your game on at:
Brilliant Gameologists' PbP Forum. Do it, you know you want to.
The 3.5 Cleric Handbook
The 13th Guard - An alternate history campaign idea.
Clerics just wake up one morning and decide they need to kick ass, and it needs to be kicked NOW. ~veekie

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2008, 07:17:27 PM »
My post must have been to long winded.

The sage's officiality should genuinely be questioned at this point.
There are not "official events" so basically you're just arguing for bragging rights at this point.
The right to say "My way was right Nyah Nyah"
Come on.

Seriously, it the sage said suddenly "Oh and stacking fear beyond cowering? Kills you" would you say... Okay uhm I guess since its "official"
Or how about.
"Spiked chains are not supposed to trip" it was never intended for them to do so, it just slipped between the cracks.
"You get a swift and an immediate action every round"
"All spell resistance is supposed to be increased by 5"
"Dinosaurs are not animals, but dragons"
"Demons are not outsiders but vermin.. kobolds too"

at what point would you say... okay bs.

At this point all he's really adding is house rules, and if your still playing 3.5 an unsupported format you should probbbably be house rulling these things yourself.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2008, 08:18:54 PM »
What? When did he say he was an official source?

Pull shit out of your ass much? :rolleyes
wut? I didn't say he was and as far as I know he has not said he is either.

Please read the posts before posting. kthx.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2008, 08:27:46 PM »
What? When did he say he was an official source?

Pull shit out of your ass much? :rolleyes
wut? I didn't say he was and as far as I know he has not said he is either.

Please read the posts before posting. kthx.
Oh! I see what you meant.
Hmm. Though it was somewhat amibiguous.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

AfterCrescent

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 4220
  • Here After
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2008, 10:35:51 PM »
Ahh, my apologies. Like M_V, I misread it. I see what you mean now.
The cake is a lie.
Need to play table top? Get your game on at:
Brilliant Gameologists' PbP Forum. Do it, you know you want to.
The 3.5 Cleric Handbook
The 13th Guard - An alternate history campaign idea.
Clerics just wake up one morning and decide they need to kick ass, and it needs to be kicked NOW. ~veekie

PhoenixInferno

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2008, 12:14:02 AM »
There are opinions, and there are facts.

And the fact that Deepwarden Con bonus is in no way limited by armor as per the rules is opposed to the (incorrect) opinion that it is ambiguous.
1) I was referring to your idiotic example.
2) The fact that it is ambiguous makes it proper to be addressed in an FAQ, whether you agree with the interpretation or not.  For purposes of RAW discussion, you must accept the FAQ in its entirety or reject the FAQ in its entirety.

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2008, 12:33:01 AM »
@AC, No problem really.

Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]