Author Topic: Magic Mantle  (Read 7716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2010, 09:38:49 PM »
RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of. :D

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.
Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"
It doesn't matter what they believe to be the most common or what they intended a sentence to mean, it's what is written that matters.

To an extent, you're right; we can't always know the designers' intent, and we have to make do with what we have. But when the developers have made CLEAR what the intent was, as they have in this case, ignoring it is like claiming that a Vigilante has 20 3rd level spells. If the sentence I bolded in the first post didn't exist, then I would have to agree with you and say, "This is a rule they didn't think through very well, and we can abuse it." But they went on to print a clarifying sentence which is sufficiently clear unless you're willfully trying to misinterpret the rule.

Quote
Also, it is not what you are stating when you use complete transparency, it simply is what the developers stated with their badly written rules.

But it IS what I stated when you use complete transparency. I might have worded it in such a way as to make it seem absurd, but that is actually the argument: "Psionics is equivalent to magic, so I can apply metamagic feats to powers." Even if you could, it's like applying Extend Spell to Alchemist's Fire; you can sorta see how it MIGHT work (double the duration of burning), but it still doesn't really make any sense because Extend Spell refers to all sorts of mechanics that don't exist, like Spell Level (even if the adjustment is 0, it still exists as a mechanic).

Also, claiming that different groups play different ways is kind of irrelevant. I'm not arguing that following the rules 100% is what anyone does. I'm arguing that the only reason somebody would play this way is if they despised balance (which is fine, but you probably shouldn't suggest this trick to anyone else or hope to use it in a build meant for anything but a theoretical exercise), because it's not in the rules and it breaks the system into itty-bitty pieces (well, more than it was already in). If you want to make a "But casting has ridiculous trick X!" argument, great, ban trick X because it's breaking your game. Don't use it as an excuse to break a much less absurd system by deliberately misinterpreting a rule and ignoring the clarification printed in the following sentence.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2010, 10:08:27 PM »
RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of. :D

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.
Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"
It doesn't matter what they believe to be the most common or what they intended a sentence to mean, it's what is written that matters.

To an extent, you're right; we can't always know the designers' intent, and we have to make do with what we have. But when the developers have made CLEAR what the intent was, as they have in this case, ignoring it is like claiming that a Vigilante has 20 3rd level spells. If the sentence I bolded in the first post didn't exist, then I would have to agree with you and say, "This is a rule they didn't think through very well, and we can abuse it." But they went on to print a clarifying sentence which is sufficiently clear unless you're willfully trying to misinterpret the rule.

Quote
Also, it is not what you are stating when you use complete transparency, it simply is what the developers stated with their badly written rules.

But it IS what I stated when you use complete transparency. I might have worded it in such a way as to make it seem absurd, but that is actually the argument: "Psionics is equivalent to magic, so I can apply metamagic feats to powers." Even if you could, it's like applying Extend Spell to Alchemist's Fire; you can sorta see how it MIGHT work (double the duration of burning), but it still doesn't really make any sense because Extend Spell refers to all sorts of mechanics that don't exist, like Spell Level (even if the adjustment is 0, it still exists as a mechanic).

Also, claiming that different groups play different ways is kind of irrelevant. I'm not arguing that following the rules 100% is what anyone does. I'm arguing that the only reason somebody would play this way is if they despised balance (which is fine, but you probably shouldn't suggest this trick to anyone else or hope to use it in a build meant for anything but a theoretical exercise), because it's not in the rules and it breaks the system into itty-bitty pieces (well, more than it was already in). If you want to make a "But casting has ridiculous trick X!" argument, great, ban trick X because it's breaking your game. Don't use it as an excuse to break a much less absurd system by deliberately misinterpreting a rule and ignoring the clarification printed in the following sentence.
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2010, 10:14:48 PM »
RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of. :D

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.
Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"
It doesn't matter what they believe to be the most common or what they intended a sentence to mean, it's what is written that matters.

To an extent, you're right; we can't always know the designers' intent, and we have to make do with what we have. But when the developers have made CLEAR what the intent was, as they have in this case, ignoring it is like claiming that a Vigilante has 20 3rd level spells. If the sentence I bolded in the first post didn't exist, then I would have to agree with you and say, "This is a rule they didn't think through very well, and we can abuse it." But they went on to print a clarifying sentence which is sufficiently clear unless you're willfully trying to misinterpret the rule.

Quote
Also, it is not what you are stating when you use complete transparency, it simply is what the developers stated with their badly written rules.

But it IS what I stated when you use complete transparency. I might have worded it in such a way as to make it seem absurd, but that is actually the argument: "Psionics is equivalent to magic, so I can apply metamagic feats to powers." Even if you could, it's like applying Extend Spell to Alchemist's Fire; you can sorta see how it MIGHT work (double the duration of burning), but it still doesn't really make any sense because Extend Spell refers to all sorts of mechanics that don't exist, like Spell Level (even if the adjustment is 0, it still exists as a mechanic).

Also, claiming that different groups play different ways is kind of irrelevant. I'm not arguing that following the rules 100% is what anyone does. I'm arguing that the only reason somebody would play this way is if they despised balance (which is fine, but you probably shouldn't suggest this trick to anyone else or hope to use it in a build meant for anything but a theoretical exercise), because it's not in the rules and it breaks the system into itty-bitty pieces (well, more than it was already in). If you want to make a "But casting has ridiculous trick X!" argument, great, ban trick X because it's breaking your game. Don't use it as an excuse to break a much less absurd system by deliberately misinterpreting a rule and ignoring the clarification printed in the following sentence.
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.
Win  :lol

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2010, 12:08:16 AM »
RAI the mantle was clearly meant to make it normal transparency. However, that last sentence doesn't effect the cheap interpretation in the slightest. While having complete transparency is insanely useful in normal transparency games, it is just a bit more useful in non-transparency games. As for the first part of the sentence, who is to say what most other games treat psionics and magic as, you only know about the games you've heard of. :D

You're right that, relatively speaking, the majority of its usefulness in a non-transparency campaign comes from forcing normal transparency, regardless of uber-transparency. That has nothing to do with it, though; the bold text makes it pretty clear that this doesn't have any effect on "most games", and because there's no indication in the XPH of the game EVER working the way people seem to be interpreting the Magic Mantle, it doesn't matter what, precisely, I think is the most common of the rulesets presented there. Since the XPH never suggests that you can apply metamagic feats to powers (as my favorite example of a silly thing to do), that is almost certainly not how most games work, so it can't be what the Magic Mantle does, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.
Who is to say what most games use as a ruleset? For all you know, every game but what you have heard of plays with non-transparency.

It doesn't matter what I know about it. The developers set Magic-Psionic transparency as the default, and as a result that's almost certainly what THEY believe to be the most common (and thus what they were referring to when writing the rule). Even were that not the case, it's preposterous to suggest that most games are run in a way not even written in the books, which is what you have to do when you say, "I treat magic and psionics as identical, so I'm gonna apply Persist Spell to this power!"
It doesn't matter what they believe to be the most common or what they intended a sentence to mean, it's what is written that matters.

To an extent, you're right; we can't always know the designers' intent, and we have to make do with what we have. But when the developers have made CLEAR what the intent was, as they have in this case, ignoring it is like claiming that a Vigilante has 20 3rd level spells. If the sentence I bolded in the first post didn't exist, then I would have to agree with you and say, "This is a rule they didn't think through very well, and we can abuse it." But they went on to print a clarifying sentence which is sufficiently clear unless you're willfully trying to misinterpret the rule.

Quote
Also, it is not what you are stating when you use complete transparency, it simply is what the developers stated with their badly written rules.

But it IS what I stated when you use complete transparency. I might have worded it in such a way as to make it seem absurd, but that is actually the argument: "Psionics is equivalent to magic, so I can apply metamagic feats to powers." Even if you could, it's like applying Extend Spell to Alchemist's Fire; you can sorta see how it MIGHT work (double the duration of burning), but it still doesn't really make any sense because Extend Spell refers to all sorts of mechanics that don't exist, like Spell Level (even if the adjustment is 0, it still exists as a mechanic).

Also, claiming that different groups play different ways is kind of irrelevant. I'm not arguing that following the rules 100% is what anyone does. I'm arguing that the only reason somebody would play this way is if they despised balance (which is fine, but you probably shouldn't suggest this trick to anyone else or hope to use it in a build meant for anything but a theoretical exercise), because it's not in the rules and it breaks the system into itty-bitty pieces (well, more than it was already in). If you want to make a "But casting has ridiculous trick X!" argument, great, ban trick X because it's breaking your game. Don't use it as an excuse to break a much less absurd system by deliberately misinterpreting a rule and ignoring the clarification printed in the following sentence.
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.

This thread explains everything about why I disagree with you. Different forum, but I happen to know a lot of people migrated over here from there, and until recently that was the attitude I was seeing around here. Do I really have to start ranting about the good ol' days at GLEEMAX, of all places?
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2010, 08:56:32 AM »
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.

This thread explains everything about why I disagree with you. Different forum, but I happen to know a lot of people migrated over here from there, and until recently that was the attitude I was seeing around here. Do I really have to start ranting about the good ol' days at GLEEMAX, of all places?
I'm aware of Caelic's opinion though I don't agree with it. You seem to be making contradictory statements. You post a link to a thread complaining about how the spread of the use of RAW at Gleemax and then you seem to claim that RAW wasn't being used that much at Gleemax.

This is the last thing I will say on this matter, you can certainly claim that it is not RAI and I will agree with you. However, claiming that it is not RAW or that RAW is inherently wrong is just willfully ignoring the unpleasant truth (unpleasant to you that is).
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 09:05:44 AM by Bastian »

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2010, 01:40:40 PM »
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.

This thread explains everything about why I disagree with you. Different forum, but I happen to know a lot of people migrated over here from there, and until recently that was the attitude I was seeing around here. Do I really have to start ranting about the good ol' days at GLEEMAX, of all places?
I'm aware of Caelic's opinion though I don't agree with it. You seem to be making contradictory statements. You post a link to a thread complaining about how the spread of the use of RAW at Gleemax and then you seem to claim that RAW wasn't being used that much at Gleemax.

This is the last thing I will say on this matter, you can certainly claim that it is not RAI and I will agree with you. However, claiming that it is not RAW or that RAW is inherently wrong is just willfully ignoring the unpleasant truth (unpleasant to you that is).

Actually, I was linking to a thread complaining about the spread of willful attempts to misinterpret RAW on Gleemax, and I was then just finishing that off by saying that Gleemax was generally pretty sucky, but at least they recognized when abuse of the rules was legitimate (like Shaedlings) or not (like the Vigilante's 20 3rd level spells).

And all I'm saying is that to regard this interpretation as RAW, you have to ignore what's WRITTEN in the following sentence, which is like ignoring how many spells per day a wizard can cast because their Spellcasting ability just says, "A wizard casts arcane spells." with no clarification on how frequently.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2010, 03:28:46 PM »
You seem to be confusing this board with one that cares about RAI.

This thread explains everything about why I disagree with you. Different forum, but I happen to know a lot of people migrated over here from there, and until recently that was the attitude I was seeing around here. Do I really have to start ranting about the good ol' days at GLEEMAX, of all places?
I'm aware of Caelic's opinion though I don't agree with it. You seem to be making contradictory statements. You post a link to a thread complaining about how the spread of the use of RAW at Gleemax and then you seem to claim that RAW wasn't being used that much at Gleemax.

This is the last thing I will say on this matter, you can certainly claim that it is not RAI and I will agree with you. However, claiming that it is not RAW or that RAW is inherently wrong is just willfully ignoring the unpleasant truth (unpleasant to you that is).

Actually, I was linking to a thread complaining about the spread of willful attempts to misinterpret RAW on Gleemax, and I was then just finishing that off by saying that Gleemax was generally pretty sucky, but at least they recognized when abuse of the rules was legitimate (like Shaedlings) or not (like the Vigilante's 20 3rd level spells).

And all I'm saying is that to regard this interpretation as RAW, you have to ignore what's WRITTEN in the following sentence, which is like ignoring how many spells per day a wizard can cast because their Spellcasting ability just says, "A wizard casts arcane spells." with no clarification on how frequently.
*points at EjoThims's post last page*

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2010, 04:18:32 PM »
Yeah, Ejo's right that saying they're identical is contradictory to the clarification sentence. That just means the RAW is contradictory, but that suggests to me that you just need to step back and say, "This sentence doesn't make any sense. Let's go with what the next one tells us was the intent of that sentence, even though its actual wording contradicts the earlier sentence if taken at face value."

I'm not saying your interpretation is one that can't be gotten out of it, but it ISN'T pure and holy RAW. It requires ignoring a sentence in the RAW (or at least not considering what that sentence means), leaves numerous holes in just HOW to apply that rule (if I told you that melee attacks were now identical to spellcasting, how exactly do you apply that?), and is no more supported by the actual wording of the sentence than my interpretation. This isn't RAW vs RAI, this the Rules As The Writers Intend vs the Rules as *I* Intend. That's not a wrong way to play, obviously (judging by all the homebrewing and fixes out there), but it IS wrong to support that as RAW when the RAW itself is completely unclear.

EDIT: Wanna clarify that when I said earlier that Gleemax was sucky, I generally meant the forum environment. The regular posters there were actually pretty awesome.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 04:22:20 PM by Bauglir »
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2010, 06:35:24 PM »
Yeah, Ejo's right that saying they're identical is contradictory to the clarification sentence. That just means the RAW is contradictory, but that suggests to me that you just need to step back and say, "This sentence doesn't make any sense. Let's go with what the next one tells us was the intent of that sentence, even though its actual wording contradicts the earlier sentence if taken at face value."

I'm not saying your interpretation is one that can't be gotten out of it, but it ISN'T pure and holy RAW. It requires ignoring a sentence in the RAW (or at least not considering what that sentence means), leaves numerous holes in just HOW to apply that rule (if I told you that melee attacks were now identical to spellcasting, how exactly do you apply that?), and is no more supported by the actual wording of the sentence than my interpretation. This isn't RAW vs RAI, this the Rules As The Writers Intend vs the Rules as *I* Intend. That's not a wrong way to play, obviously (judging by all the homebrewing and fixes out there), but it IS wrong to support that as RAW when the RAW itself is completely unclear.

EDIT: Wanna clarify that when I said earlier that Gleemax was sucky, I generally meant the forum environment. The regular posters there were actually pretty awesome.
*Points to EjoThims's post, points to dictionary, points to a basic reading primer, points to a definition of RAW while facepalming. Finally gives up trying and walks off shaking his head.*
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 06:42:34 PM by Bastian »

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2010, 08:33:06 PM »
Firstly, RaW contradicts itself a lot. That's the fun of RaW.  :lol

And I think it's hilarious that you both say I'm (generally) right and both agree with me, yet still manage to disagree with each other.  :lmao

Really though, the main difference seems to be that Bastian wants to talk about TO while Bauglir is focusing on practical CO (to which this board's focus is heavy). And really, it is TO, but more of the 'willfully ignorant' TO than either 'editor error' (Vigilante) or 'classily finessed' (Dirty Tricks, Pun-Pun, etc) TO.

But... This would be a great topic to port over to the TO board and hash out the potential abuses of...

Also, Caelic is a god.  :D

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2010, 08:39:47 PM »
Firstly, RaW contradicts itself a lot. That's the fun of RaW.  :lol

And I think it's hilarious that you both say I'm (generally) right and both agree with me, yet still manage to disagree with each other.  :lmao

Really though, the main difference seems to be that Bastian wants to talk about TO while Bauglir is focusing on practical CO (to which this board's focus is heavy). And really, it is TO, but more of the 'willfully ignorant' TO than either 'editor error' (Vigilante) or 'classily finessed' (Dirty Tricks, Pun-Pun, etc) TO.

But... This would be a great topic to port over to the TO board and hash out the potential abuses of...

Also, Caelic is a god.  :D
I was only talking about TO because the whole topic was on how TO could never ever be right. Quite frankly I have almost zero interest in psionics.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2010, 08:47:20 PM »
I was only talking about TO because the whole topic was on how TO could never ever be right.

I got a very distinctly different feeling from the topic, especially the first few posts. To me, it seemed simply like he was dismissing TO as not relevant. He even acknowledges in the first post that he is speaking of intent, which overlooks RaW, especially when it's most appropriate application is in TO.

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2010, 01:06:04 PM »
Yeah, I think Ejo's got my position on it. TO can be right, as long as it's kind of obvious that that's what it is. My sense has been that abusing the Magic Mantle has been a suggestion for actual play, but if that's not the case I'll shut right up.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Bastian

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2010, 01:33:26 PM »
Yeah, I think Ejo's got my position on it. TO can be right, as long as it's kind of obvious that that's what it is. My sense has been that abusing the Magic Mantle has been a suggestion for actual play, but if that's not the case I'll shut right up.
It's only been a suggestion for actual play for games that allow TO, at least as far as I've seen.

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Magic Mantle
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2010, 08:32:20 PM »
Well ... speaking of wizards.c ; the juniors over there are deep into "Mind Reading" the 4e designers at this point.
They are all so certain (and each differently so) of what the designers wanted to game to do.
And then further, one poster in particular, was certain of certainness of certain-icity (!!)  :rollseyes
that the game revolved around his interpretation of power levels.
And that half of the newly published material needed Nerfs. Ha.

**

Psi magic transparency is larger than just one line of rules text.
Each of the disciplines has a statement like this:
 For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, clairsentience powers are equivalent to powers of the divination school (thus, creatures immune to divination spells are also immune to clairsentience powers).
Dragon #349 psiotheurgist stuff, expands on these.