PDA

View Full Version : The Runesmith: Dwarf Wizards Rock



BRC
2009-11-30, 09:22 AM
So I was flipping through Races of Stone, and I ran across somthing I loved. The Runesmith, a full casting PRC that requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, but lets the caster prepare all his spells as "Runes", removing the need for somatic components.

Essentially, a dwarf wizard in full plate.

Now, I know that Wizards don't need to be wearing 500 pounds of steel to stop themselves getting hit, and the class either requires the character to lose a caster level (By dipping into Fighter or something else with Heavy Armor Proficiency) or use 3 feats, and "THOU SHALL NOT LOSE CASTER LEVELS", ect ect, but personally I'd say it's worth it.

So, the class is awesome, but I have a question and a notice

1) The Capstone ability, Permanent Rune, you give up a spell slot permanently, and in exchange get a spell of one level lower as an SLA 2 times a day.
Now, here's the odd part
If the spell takes an expensive material component, you must provide resources equal to 20x the cost of that component (Stands to reason). If it takes an expensive focus, you provide the focus, if it takes XP, you provide XP.

Wait, what?
So you pay the XP cost once, and in exchange get the spell XP free 2 times a day forever? Mind you, because you have to give up a spell slot one higher, you can't use this for Wish or anything, but you could do it with Limited Wish. So you pay 300 Xp once and give up a spell slot, and in exchange get XP-free Limited Wish 2 times a day, not a bad deal all things considered.


And now, something else, the Example Runesmith. Bazrid Harkenth, who seems to have taken Heavy Armor proficiency without taking the prerequisite. Now, knowing WoTC's track record with double checking this would be excusable, except that the Heavy Armor Proficiency requirement is explicitly stated to be a balancing factor, which I assume they take to mean alot more than "You need to spend a feat which is icrucial to the class anyway".

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 09:41 AM
1) The Capstone ability, Permanent Rune, you give up a spell slot permanently, and in exchange get a spell of one level lower as an SLA 2 times a day.
Now, here's the odd part
If the spell takes an expensive material component, you must provide resources equal to 20x the cost of that component (Stands to reason). If it takes an expensive focus, you provide the focus, if it takes XP, you provide XP.

Wait, what?.It's poorly worded, but I think the intent is that you pay the xp cost every time you use the sla.

And now, something else, the Example Runesmith. Bazrid Harkenth, who seems to have taken Heavy Armor proficiency without taking the prerequisite. Now, knowing WoTC's track record with double checking this would be excusable, except that the Heavy Armor Proficiency requirement is explicitly stated to be a balancing factor, which I assume they take to mean alot more than "You need to spend a feat which is icrucial to the class anyway".Not sure what you're getting at here. The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.

BRC
2009-11-30, 09:43 AM
It's poorly worded, but I think the intent is that you pay the xp cost every time you use the sla.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.
I know. My point was that the example runesmith given skips Light and Medium armor proficiency, going straight to Heavy, thereby negating a good deal of the balancing factor.
Or, to put it another way, WoTC messed up in a pretty significant way.

sofawall
2009-11-30, 09:47 AM
Or, to put it another way, WoTC messed up in a pretty significant way.

Are you surprised? It is an example NPC.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 09:48 AM
I know. My point was that the example runesmith given skips Light and Medium armor proficiency, going straight to Heavy, thereby negating a good deal of the balancing factor.You need to keep in mind that the example character probably wasn't made by the same person who made the PrC. It's just another WotC mistake. Business as usual.

BRC
2009-11-30, 09:50 AM
Are you surprised? It is an example NPC.
This just seems more significant than most.

Also, the SRD says this about SLA's


A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
Since the class feature description dosn't mention requiring the XP cost every time it's used, it seems pretty clear that, once made into an SLA, a spell no longer has an XP cost.

starwoof
2009-11-30, 10:03 AM
I discovered this class yesterday and I've been thinking really hard on it (weird timing). The way I read the capstone says I pay the xp component once. Then I have 2 limited wishes a day (or what have you) for the rest of my life.

BRC
2009-11-30, 10:07 AM
I discovered this class yesterday and I've been thinking really hard on it (weird timing). The way I read the capstone says I pay the xp component once. Then I have 2 limited wishes a day (or what have you) for the rest of my life.
Yeah, the "Paying the XP cost" thing seems to be pretty clearly in the paragraph about inscribing the spell, and the SLA rules are very definite about SLA's not using up XP. I don't see a way to read it that dosn't lead to 2 XP-free Limited Wishes every day.
A DM could of course say that you can't dodge XP costs with this class feature, but that would be houseruling (and justified houseruling at that).

Kurald Galain
2009-11-30, 10:25 AM
The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.

Off the top of my head, could you do a level in Duskblade for that? It means you might also qualify for True Magus.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 10:27 AM
Since the class feature description dosn't mention requiring the XP cost every time it's used,...Sure it does. "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

In other words, every time you use the SLA, you must spend xp "as if you had cast the spell normally".

Again, it's bady worded, but this interpreation is more reasonable.

BRC
2009-11-30, 10:29 AM
Sure it does. "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

In other words, every time you use the SLA, you must spend xp "as if you had cast the spell normally".

Again, it's bady worded, but this interpreation is more reasonable.
That's clearly in the paragraph about Inscribing the Spell. If that was what was meant, they would have put it in the next paragraph, about after the spell was inscribed.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 10:36 AM
The problem I have with the "only once" interpretation here is the difference in wording. The Material Component and Focus Component wordings use "expend" but the XP component wording says "spend as cast normally." This seems to imply that the XP cost is paid differently than the other two; the logical conclusion being that it must be paid more than once.

In other words, if they meant it to be a one-shot cost like it is with the other two components, they would have used "expend."

Compare also the Archmage's SLA ability, which still requires XP with each activation (for spells that require XP) even though it is an SLA.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 10:37 AM
That's clearly in the paragraph about Inscribing the Spell. If that was what was meant, they would have put it in the next paragraph, about after the spell was inscribed.Circular. If it refers to using the SLA then it's not "the paragraph about inscribing the spell".

BRC
2009-11-30, 10:42 AM
Circular. If it refers to using the SLA then it's not "the paragraph about inscribing the spell".
It dosn't.
Here are the lines in question


To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune. If the spell has a costly material component, he must expend resources equal to 20 times the gp cost of the material component. If it has a costly focus, he must expend resources equal to the cost of the focus. If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally.
Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day.
The first part is clearly about what it takes to inscribe the rune itself. The second paragraph is about after the rune is inscribed. The XP cost is mentioned in the first paragraph.

HamHam
2009-11-30, 10:51 AM
That seems to clearly say you spend the XP once. On the other hand, that is terribly broken.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 10:52 AM
It dosn't.
Here are the lines in question

The first part is clearly about what it takes to inscribe the rune itself. The second paragraph is about after the rune is inscribed. The XP cost is mentioned in the first paragraph.You really don't want to play the "it's clearly" game when you're advocating a clearly unbalanced interpretation.

The last sentence refers to the xp cost of using the SLA. Therefore, the paragraph is clearly not only about inscribing the rune. See what I did there?

BRC
2009-11-30, 10:55 AM
You really don't want to play the "it's clearly" game when you're advocating a clearly unbalanced interpretation.

The last sentence refers to the xp cost of using the SLA. Therefore, the paragraph is clearly not only about inscribing the rune. See what I did there?
I didn't say my interpretation was balanced. I was saying it was whats in the book. If I was DMing, I'd houserule it so you would pay the XP cost every time you used the SLA, if I was a player and the DM said "You need to pay the spells XP cost every time", I wouldn't complain. But I would call it a highly justified Houserule, not an interpretation of RAW.

crazedloon
2009-11-30, 10:58 AM
well I think the important portion of the rule is the last portion

"Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day."

the fact that you activate the rune much like you would an item is relevant because you are not casting the spell or using a spell-like ability. Much any magic item you do not use your exp when activating this rune.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 11:05 AM
I didn't say my interpretation was balanced. I was saying it was whats in the book.Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.

BRC
2009-11-30, 11:18 AM
Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.
Doesn't the same apply to your interpretation?

As far as I can tell (I am probably wrong feel free to correct me), these are our respective arguments

Me: They only mention paying XP costs in a paragraph devoted to inscribing the rune, therefore, by RAW, you only pay the cost once.
You: Since only paying the XP cost once is incredibly broken, that line obviously refers to using the SLA, not inscribing the rune.

Draxar
2009-11-30, 11:22 AM
Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.

No. XP every time could me RAI, but it's certainly not RAW. "What's in the book" is the RAW

Rules are rules, and there's no context in the book to that particular rule that suggests that that text should not be interpreted according to the normal rules of D&D

Here is the text about the inscribing of the rune:


To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune. If the spell has a costly material component, he must expend resources equal to 20 times the gp cost of the material component. If it has a costly focus, he must expend resources equal to the cost of the focus. If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally.

All of that is clearly about the inscribing, and only the inscribing.



Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day.

This is the second part, as it's talking about 'once you've inscribed', and you activate it as a spell like ability, which don't cost XP or GP.

No-one is arguing the fact that this can be broken (though there are rather easier ways to break the same thing). But you seem to be arguing that the rules, in fact, state that it's XP every time.

They don't.

quicker_comment
2009-11-30, 11:22 AM
Honestly, the text seems entirely clear to me. At least unless you're arguing that the runesmith should also pay 20 times the material component cost, and the cost of the focus, each time they activate the SLA.

Saying that the three sentences should refer to two entirely different contexts does not seem like a valid reading. Context is a part of the language, you can't just ignore it.

Leon
2009-11-30, 11:43 AM
Its a good one - I don't worry about lost CL too much so a level or 2 of another class is easy (Fighter if you worry about Multiclass issues, cleric if not)

Yeah its another WotC error at checking the details for the feats

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 11:47 AM
As far as I can tell (I am probably wrong feel free to correct me), these are our respective arguments

Me: They only mention paying XP costs in a paragraph devoted to inscribing the rune, therefore, by RAW, you only pay the cost once. And this, as I pointed out earlier, is circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). If the last sentence in the paragraph does not refer to inscribing the rune then the paragraph clearly isn't "devoted to inscribing the rune".

You: Since only paying the XP cost once is incredibly broken, that line obviously refers to using the SLA, not inscribing the rune.No. My argument is that the rules are badly worded. Unclear. We are forced to make a judgement call as to the intent of the rules.

My judgement call is mainly based on how not having to spend XP on certain spells would be obviously broken and inconsistent with similar class abilities (archmage).

Your judgement call is based on your subjective opinion on what the paragraph is about.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 11:54 AM
Honestly, the text seems entirely clear to me. At least unless you're arguing that the runesmith should also pay 20 times the material component cost, and the cost of the focus, each time they activate the SLA.

Saying that the three sentences should refer to two entirely different contexts does not seem like a valid reading. Context is a part of the language, you can't just ignore it.

But the reverse is also true - language is a part of context, and using different language implies different treatment. Why would they change the verb for the XP payment if they wanted it treated the same way as the other payments?

And RAI suggests turning spells into SLAs should not circumvent XP costs, with Archmage as a guide.

BRC
2009-11-30, 11:57 AM
And this, as I pointed out earlier, is circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). If the last sentence in the paragraph does not refer to inscribing the rune then the paragraph clearly isn't "devoted to inscribing the rune".
No. My argument is that rules are badly worded. Unclear. We are forced to make a judgement call as to the intent of the rules.

My judgement call is mainly based on how not having to spend XP on certain spells would be obviously broken and inconsistent with similar class abilities (archmage).

Your judgement call is based on your subjective opinion on what the paragraph is about.

No, the RAW is clear, however, it's not good. We both agree on what the rules SHOULD be, it should be archmage-style SLA's, where the caster pays XP costs every time.
The difference is that I start with what is written, say "It should be This". You are starting with what it should be, and assuming that's what it is. Since the RAW dosn't say that, you are saying "RAW is unclear, we must use our judgement".
Think Occams Razor, which is more likely, that they, without any warning, switch from talking about inscribing the rune to talking about using the rune in the same paragraph, then make another paragraph about using the rune without mentioning XP costs when they could have used much clearer language (like they did with the Archmage). OR that they, when writing the class, messed up, as they have been wont to do quite often.

Edit: Your logic is equally circular. " that sentence is not about inscribing runes, therefore the Paragraph is not about inscribing runes, therefore the sentence can be about using the rune instead of inscribing it, therefore the Paragraph is not about inscribing runes..."
Every other sentence in that paragraph is clearly about inscribing runes. The 24 hour period, providing the focus and 20 times the material components. And they have another paragraph about using the rune.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 12:18 PM
No, the RAW is clear, ... No, it's not.

Here's the rule in question again: "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

This is the Rule as Written. And strictly as written, separated from the context of the rest of the rules (which apparently it must be, or we get into subjective intent), it says nothing about when the xp must be spent - every time when using the SLA or once when inscribing the rune. It's not clear.

Think Occams Razor, which is more likely, that they, without any warning, switch from talking about inscribing the rune to talking about using the rune in the same paragraph, then make another paragraph about using the rune without mentioning XP costs when they could have used much clearer language (like they did with the Archmage). OR that they, when writing the class, messed up, as they have been wont to do quite often.Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?

Dixieboy
2009-11-30, 12:26 PM
That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description.
This is not as unlikely as you think.

jiriku
2009-11-30, 12:27 PM
Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?

Actually, both of those things are likely behaviors among WotC game designers. :smalltongue:

/smartass

BRC
2009-11-30, 12:28 PM
No, it's not.

Here's the rule in question again: "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

This is the Rule as Written. And strictly as written, separated from the context of the rest of the rules (which apparently it must be, or we get into subjective intent), it says nothing about when the xp must be spent - every time when using the SLA or once when inscribing the rune. It's not clear.

But Context IS relevant, especially considering that rule isn't complete on it's own. It says "he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally", saying he is not casting the spell normally. From there, we must look to the Context to see when the spell is being cast normally.
If somebody says "The night before a test, I like to study with some friends. I also try to get to bed an hour earlier than normal". You can't take "I also try to get to bed an hour earlier than normal" on it's own and call it unclear. It's only unclear because you separated it from it's clarifying context.


Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?
. Polymorph Any Object. Chain-Gating Solars. Planar Shepard. Druids. Epic Spellcasting. Divine Metamagic+Nightsticks. Candle of Invocation.

Edit: And even if, as you said, the editor messed it up and put the sentence in the wrong place, that's still RAW.



EditII: Here is what you are doing. Take the rule for the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability


Skill Mastery

The rogue becomes so certain in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.

Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue may gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for it to apply to each time.
You are taking this sentence

When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
and saying "It doesn't specify which skills, therefore it's unclear".

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 12:51 PM
But Context IS relevant, especially considering that rule isn't complete on it's own.Oh, I agree. Which is why I am pointing out that my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the DnD rules. I'm just looking at a wider context than you are.


It says "he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally", saying he is not casting the spell normally.
Indeed. In my interpretation he's using a spell-like ability, not casting the spell normally. You don't cast the spell, normally or otherwise, at any point while inscibing the rune.

Polymorph Any Object. Chain-Gating Solars. Planar Shepard. Druids. Epic Spellcasting. Divine Metamagic+Nightsticks. Candle of Invocation.This is why I included the words "after consideration" in the post you quoted. This is no "OMG, SLAs have no XP cost - who knew!!!!" SNAFU. You're arguing that someone knew the consequences and accepted them as reasonable.

Are you really saying the same is true for all DnD exploits? I don't have a very high opinion of WotC, but that seems excessive.


Edit: And even if, as you said, the editor messed it up and put the sentence in the wrong place, that's still RAW.Sure. And RAW here is unclear. It must be interpreted by a human being.

Anonymouswizard
2009-11-30, 12:52 PM
2 steps to getting the RAW published:
1: Grammatical error
2: Make sure WotC does not proof read.

I'd say that it was lazyness on the part of the typer to not go back and correct his mistake if he saw it. WotC obviously do not read their own books (I plan on doing the same if I publish an RPG, design notes are so much better[/sarcasm]).

wormwood
2009-11-30, 01:07 PM
I feel the need to point out the purpose of a paragraph in the English language is to group sentences related to a single topic. Therefore, by including the sentence in the paragraph that describes the inscription of the rune, WotC made it quite clear how that sentence was to be interpreted. Even if that sentence wasn't intended to be in that paragraph, it was. The RAW say that you only pay the XP once. Yes, that is bad.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-30, 01:20 PM
I feel the need to point out the purpose of a paragraph in the English language is to group sentences related to a single topic. Therefore, by including the sentence in the paragraph that describes the inscription of the rune, WotC made it quite clear how that sentence was to be interpreted. Even if that sentence wasn't intended to be in that paragraph, it was. The RAW say that you only pay the XP once. Yes, that is bad.Eh, not terribly. The River effect combined with the fact that you can't get the really expensive spells with it would seem to make it better. The only things I can think of using it for are Limited Wish or Vision. Maybe Simulacrum, if you hate your DM.

HamHam
2009-11-30, 01:25 PM
No, it's not.

Here's the rule in question again: "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

This is the Rule as Written. And strictly as written, separated from the context of the rest of the rules (which apparently it must be, or we get into subjective intent), it says nothing about when the xp must be spent - every time when using the SLA or once when inscribing the rune. It's not clear.

It's crystal clear.

The first paragraph describes the inscription process, and opens a clause describing what you need to do to inscribe a rune: You must do X. You must do Y if A is true. You must do Z if B is true. To break it down into a strict logical construction:

START
INPUT: You must sacrifice a spell slot one level higher and spend 24 hours inscribing.
IF it has a costly material component, THEN you must also spend 20x that cost.
IF it has a focus, THEN you must also spend the cost of that focus.
IF it has an XP cost, THEN you must spend that XP cost.
OUTPUT: You gain the use of the spell as a supernatural ability twice per day.
END

There is no other reasonable way to read that paragraph, unless you want to say that you also have to spend 20x the costly material component and the cost of a focus every single time you use the SLA. The sentences are structured exactly the same way, so one reading has to apply to all of them or none of them.

EDIT: I am also pretty sure it is not a typo. The fact is the designer probably thought it was fair that way because he only ever plays fighters and doesn't know how broken spells with XP costs are. IE the exact same way every single thing WotC publishes is designed.

Yukitsu
2009-11-30, 01:25 PM
I'd do the simulacrum one, but I don't hate my DM. :smallsmile:

I'd have 10 million identical black cats. :smallbiggrin:

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 01:30 PM
I feel the need to point out the purpose of a paragraph in the English language is to group sentences related to a single topic. Therefore, by including the sentence in the paragraph that describes the inscription of the rune, WotC made it quite clear how that sentence was to be interpreted. In my version the topic of the paragraph is the costs associated with the class ability. Both when inscribing the rune (pay 20x normal material cost) and when using the SLA (pay 1x normal XP cost).

quicker_comment
2009-11-30, 01:40 PM
But the reverse is also true - language is a part of context, and using different language implies different treatment. Why would they change the verb for the XP payment if they wanted it treated the same way as the other payments?
We can only guess. Perhaps they did it to improve the writing by avoiding overuse of one verb? This is a questionable choice in a rules text, but obviously WotC did make some pretty questionable choices here. And in any case, the ambiguity that has arisen is not over what "spend" or "expend" means, but when something is to be spent or expended.

I very much disagree that "different language implies different treatment". Using one word in one sentence and then a synonym for that word in the next does not generally imply that you want the reader to read some difference between the two words into the text. Furthermore, as long as none of the words used are obscure or stray from the original meaning, using synonyms in this manner is common practice and generally acknowledged as good writing. It seems strange to argue that such rewriting will always alter the meaning of a text.

ocdscale
2009-11-30, 01:45 PM
Edit: I removed the section regarding Iku Rex's definition of RAW, because given his post below, it is clear that I misunderstood his point.

Back to the topic at hand. Lets look at the text:

To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune.
So we have some context now, we're talking about inscribing a permanent rune and the methods to do so.
Edit: Contrary to what you suggest, I see no indication in this topic sentence that the paragraph will cover the cost of using a SLA.

If the spell has a costly material component, he must expend resources equal to 20 times the gp cost of the material component. If it has a costly focus, he must expend resources equal to the cost of the focus.
With that context, these two sentences are pretty clear. The spell refers to the spell being inscribed and the cost is to be paid upon inscription.

If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally.
This is the line in question. You contend that this now refers to the activation of the SLA, while it seems everyone else believes it continues to refer to the inscription of the spell.


Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day.
This line concludes the section on inscription, explaining what it possible after the spell is inscribed. This line gives the previous line context as well, by acting as a bookend on the paragraph which begins with "how to inscribe" and now ends with "what you can do after inscribing".

Your analysis requires reading the paragraph structure as:
"How to inscribe"
"Costs of inscription"
"Costs of using certain previously inscribed spell as a SLA"
"What you can do after inscription [namely, using it as a SLA]"
It makes very little logical sense to read it that way.

Looking to other rulebooks for a sense of comparison is a one good way to determine RAI, but not RAW. The context is too attenuated.

For what it's worth:
RAI is the best. RAW fetishism confuses me (should only be applied where RAI cannot be reasonably discerned). RAW, this would permit costless Limited Wishes. Reasonable DMs will not permit it.

BRC
2009-11-30, 02:13 PM
This is why I included the words "after consideration" in the post you quoted. This is no "OMG, SLAs have no XP cost - who knew!!!!" SNAFU. You're arguing that someone knew the consequences and accepted them as reasonable.
No, I don't think somebody said
"This is a good class, but what it needs is a capstone that breaks the game", and then decided to add such a capstone. I think WoTC told the designer "Make X classes", so the Designer made the Runesmith, didn't bother to think the implications through, and moved on. The Editors skimmed through it for blatant errors and didn't find any (A careful examination would have led to them catching the Example Runesmith skipping 2 feats) and then declared things okay. It wasn't an intentional insertion, it was an oversight, nothing more.



Oh, I agree. Which is why I am pointing out that my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the DnD rules. I'm just looking at a wider context than you are.
Except that the rules in question, characters gaining SLA's for spells with experience point costs, have no General rules, only specific rules.
The General rule is that SLA's do not have experience costs.
The Specific rule for the Archmage (That you keep citing) is that the Archmage still pays EXP costs for spells they get as SLA's. However, that's a rule for Archmages, it's not a general rule, and has no relevance outside of Archmages. Assuming that rule is the general rule for everytime a PC can pick a spell to gain as an SLA makes no sense. It would be like saying "Rouges need to deprive an opponent of their dexterity bonus to AC to deal extra dice of damage, therefore any time any class wants to deal extra dice of damage they must deprive the target of it's dexterity bonus to AC". "This is the way it works elsewhere" has no relevance on what the RAW says.

In fact, there is no precedent for DnD to have players assume something works a given way because similar things work a given way elsewhere. In fact, it's usually very explicit when PRC's use even well known core rules.

here, does the following paragraph sound familiar


When a new [Class name] level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained, except for an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an [class name], he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
It should, it's at the beginning of pretty much every full casting PRC in the game. It's so standardized they could have just made it a single rule except where explicitly noted. And yet, there it is, outlining in explicit detail how your spellcasting progresses when you take a level in the PRC.
So, if RAW should be taken with the viewpoint that "A similar class feature did it differently, therefore it's unclear", why bother repeating this over an over.
Or here's something else, take the ability Sudden Strike


Sudden Strike (Ex): If a ninja can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Whenever a ninja’s target is denied a Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), the ninja deals an extra 1d6 points of damage with her attack. This extra damage increases by 1d6 points for every two ninja levels thereafter. A ninja can’t use sudden strike when flanking an opponent unless that opponent is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC. This damage also applies to ranged attacks against targets up to 30 feet away. Creatures with concealment, creatures without discernible anatomies, and creatures immune to extra damage from critical hits are all immune to sudden strikes. A ninja can’t make a sudden strike while striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are out of reach. A ninja can’t use sudden strike to deliver nonlethal damage. Weapons capable of dealing only nonlethal
damage don’t deal extra damage when used as part of a sudden strike.
The extra damage from the sudden strike ability stacks with the extra damage from sneak attack whenever both would apply to the same target.
Now, let's look at Sneak Attack


Sneak Attack

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
Those abilities are nearly identical. However, Sudden Strike is slightly different. Are you saying Sudden Strike is unclearly worded because it's different from the similar Sneak Attack? Do you look at Sudden strike and say "That can't be right, because Sneak Attack dosn't work that way".

Or do you say "That's Sudden Strike, not Sneak Attack".

I'm saying This is Permanent Rune, not High Arcana: Spell Like Ability.
I notice you also have no problem with the Permanent Rune costing 20 times the cost of an expensive material component to inscribe, rather than ten times the cost of said component in XP every time it is used.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 02:19 PM
I thought you were making a good argument (one I personally disagreed with) up until the point you posted this. But I have to respond to this argument you are making because it flies in the face of logic.

Your 'read the sentence devoid of all context' RAW interpretation doesn't even support your conclusion. "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally." What does that mean? That sentence has no force taken in a vacuum.My interpretation does not "read the sentence devoid of all context". I said - and you actually quoted this in your post - "it's not clear" (when devoid of context).

My interpretation then reads the sentence in the context of the DnD rule set as well as the paragraph it is in.

<snip>


Your analysis requires reading the paragraph structure as:
"How to inscribe"
"Costs of inscription"
"Costs of using a SLA"
"What you can do after inscription [namely, using it as a SLA]"
It makes very little logical sense to read it that way.
"How to inscribe" = costs. You must pay a spell slot. You must pay in time and work. My "costs associated with the ability" viewpoint remains valid.


For what it's worth, I personally think the rule very strongly favors a reading that the OP described. I don't disagree completely. :smallsmile:

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 02:25 PM
I very much disagree that "different language implies different treatment". Using one word in one sentence and then a synonym for that word in the next does not generally imply that you want the reader to read some difference between the two words into the text. Furthermore, as long as none of the words used are obscure or stray from the original meaning, using synonyms in this manner is common practice and generally acknowledged as good writing. It seems strange to argue that such rewriting will always alter the meaning of a text.

They are synonyms in denotation, but not in connotation. 'Expend" is a more complete use of resources than "spend" - a one-shot cost, where spend is a repeatable payment. I can spend my money on several things before it runs out, but only expend it once. That's the difference that is key to this passage.

Furthermore, we have RAI as ocdscale pointed out - with Archmage as precedent, we can see that turning spell slots into SLAs should still cost XP. Without that, we have the odd situation of free Limited Wish 2/day.

BRC
2009-11-30, 02:30 PM
They are synonyms in denotation, but not in connotation. 'Expend" is a more complete use of resources than "spend" - a one-shot cost, where spend is a repeatable payment. I can spend my money on several things before it runs out, but only expend it once. That's the difference that is key to this passage.

Furthermore, we have RAI as ocdscale pointed out - with Archmage as precedent, we can see that turning spell slots into SLAs should still cost XP. Without that, we have the odd situation of free Limited Wish 2/day.
That's clearly RAB, and I would bet a good deal of money that it's RAI, but the conversation here is about RAW. Rules As Written, not Rules as we think the author would have written if he'd put more thought into it, or rules as make sense if you look at the way other classes do it, or rules as any sane DM would allow. Rules as Written.

Muad'dib
2009-11-30, 02:31 PM
They are synonyms in denotation, but not in connotation. 'Expend" is a more complete use of resources than "spend" - a one-shot cost, where spend is a repeatable payment. I can spend my money on several things before it runs out, but only expend it once. That's the difference that is key to this passage.

Furthermore, we have RAI as ocdscale pointed out - with Archmage as precedent, we can see that turning spell slots into SLAs should still cost XP. Without that, we have the odd situation of free Limited Wish 2/day.

In this case, I would say the use of different words has a lot more to do with the object being used. Material components and foci are both objects that are tangible. The experience is an abstract and fits more in line with currency. I don't use the verb expend with currency unless I refer to it as a lump sum of sorts, such as expending my life savings or some such, i.e. I spend my xp with the assumption that I still have xp afterwards. The use of similar words in this case still doesn't seem to have a whole lot of importance in relation to the meaning the writer was trying to get across.

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 02:45 PM
No, I don't think somebody said
"This is a good class, but what it needs is a capstone that breaks the game", and then decided to add such a capstone. I think WoTC told the designer "Make X classes", so the Designer made the Runesmith, didn't bother to think the implications through, and moved on. The Editors skimmed through it for blatant errors and didn't find any (A careful examination would have led to them catching the Example Runesmith skipping 2 feats) and then declared things okay. It wasn't an intentional insertion, it was an oversight, nothing more. The problem with this explanation is that the designer made sure to specify that spells with a costly material component cost 20x component to inscribe. And then he didn't (in your interpretation) just ignore XP costs, he proceeded to give the exact cost of inscribing spells with an XP cost as well. This means consideration must have been involved. Supposedly someone wrote that thinking "I must ensure that players can't easily abuse a spell balanced by a gp cost, but I, a professional game designer making a caster PrC, can't imagine any way to abuse a spell balanced by an XP cost". This seems like an unlikely scenario.



Except that the rules in question, characters gaining SLA's for spells with experience point costs, have no General rules, only specific rules.
The General rule is that SLA's do not have experience costs.
The Specific rule for the Archmage (That you keep citing) is that the Archmage still pays EXP costs for spells they get as SLA's. However, that's a rule for Archmages, it's not a general rule, and has no relevance outside of Archmages. Assuming that rule is the general rule for everytime a PC can pick a spell to gain as an SLA makes no sense.I have never said that the archmage rule (which I mentioned once BTW) must apply to all SLAs.

My argument is that the rule out of context is not clear, but that seen in the context of the DnD rules as whole it makes more sense to apply it to each use of the SLA. Paying the XP cost every time the ability is used makes sense because it is balanced and because it is consistent with similar abilities (archmage). And since there clearly is a rule present, this specific rule (interpreted my way) trumps the general rule for SLAs.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 02:52 PM
That's clearly RAB, and I would bet a good deal of money that it's RAI, but the conversation here is about RAW. Rules As Written, not Rules as we think the author would have written if he'd put more thought into it, or rules as make sense if you look at the way other classes do it, or rules as any sane DM would allow. Rules as Written.

RAW is ambiguous here, making it meaningless for definitive conclusions. The mere fact that this discussion has gone on this long proves it is ambiguous.


In this case, I would say the use of different words has a lot more to do with the object being used. Material components and foci are both objects that are tangible. The experience is an abstract and fits more in line with currency.

Experience is more in line with currency than actual currency?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-30, 02:56 PM
The problem with this explanation is that the designer made sure to specify that spells with a costly material component cost 20x component to inscribe. And then he didn't (in your interpretation) just ignore XP costs, he proceeded to give the exact cost of inscribing spells with an XP cost as well. This means consideration must have been involved. Supposedly someone wrote that thinking "I must ensure that players can't easily abuse a spell balanced by a gp cost, but I, a professional game designer making a caster PrC, can't imagine any way to abuse a spell balanced by an XP cost". This seems like an unlikely scenario.


No, that is about par for WotC.

crazedloon
2009-11-30, 02:59 PM
I have never said that the archmage rule (which I mentioned once BTW) must apply to all SLAs.

My argument is that the rule out of context is not clear, but that seen in the context of the DnD rules as whole it makes more sense to apply it to each use of the SLA. Paying the XP cost every time the ability is used makes sense because it is balanced and because it is consistent with similar abilities (archmage). And since there clearly is a rule present, this specific rule (interpreted my way) trumps the general rule for SLAs.

however the archmage rule also clearly dictates the use of xp to offset the other components each use as well which is very different from this ability which has an upfront cost for two of the pieces and to think the third is not paid upfront is a stretch, particularly when you are supporting evidence is a single word change.

Also to address the word change. The reason the word is different for the xp is because there is only 1 kind of xp however the other things are based on a gold value which can be anything from gold pieces to pots and pans as long as they equal the required amount when inscribing the ruin.

mostlyharmful
2009-11-30, 03:00 PM
Here's a question, can he take the level and not take the damn ability? Since it goes one of two ways to my mind,

a. He takes it for an uberspell, pays once and has a broken usage of an uberspell, bad for game balance and endless arguments
b. He takes it for a non-uberspell in which case it's not worth the higher level slot frankly, the reason the Archmage is so cool is that he can trade a 5th for a higher level slot NOT a LOWER one.

BRC
2009-11-30, 03:02 PM
The problem with this explanation is that the designer made sure to specify that spells with a costly material component cost 20x component to inscribe. And then he didn't (in your interpretation) just ignore XP costs, he proceeded to give the exact cost of inscribing spells with an XP cost as well. This means consideration must have been involved. Supposedly someone wrote that thinking "I must ensure that players can't easily abuse a spell balanced by a gp cost, but I, a professional game designer making a caster PrC, can't imagine any way to abuse a spell balanced by an XP cost". This seems like an unlikely scenario.

I have never said that the archmage rule (which I mentioned once BTW) must apply to all SLAs.

My argument is that the rule out of context is not clear, but that seen in the context of the DnD rules as whole it makes more sense to apply it to each use of the SLA. Paying the XP cost every time the ability is used makes sense because it is balanced and because it is consistent with similar abilities (archmage). And since there clearly is a rule present, this specific rule (interpreted my way) trumps the general rule for SLAs.
Ah, and now we reach the heart of the issue.

You're interpretation is More balanced, we never disagreed on that point. Nor did we disagree that, from a gameplay perspective, it made more sense. What we disagreed on was RAW. Rules as written, unaltered by common sense or balance or reasonable assumptions.

On it's own, it makes no sense, because it's one sentence that is part of a paragraph.
In the context of the rest of the ability description, it says "You only pay the XP costs once, when inscribing the rune".
In the context of the rest of DnD, it's clearly an unbalanced rule with an easy fix.

You say "RAW makes no sense because it's unbalanced", I say "RAW makes sense, but it's unbalanced".

Here, at the risk of being overly metaphorical, here is what is happening.

I order a steak, the waiter brings me out a slab of raw meat. I say "This meat is not cooked, it should be cooked, so I will cook it myself". You are saying "It makes no sense for the waiter to bring out raw meat. When you usually order a Steak they cook it and bring it to you, and steaks taste better cooked. Therefore, this steak must be cooked".
We are not arguing about whether steaks should be cooked, we are arguing about whether this particular steak is cooked. The fact that they should have cooked the steak, or that it makes more sense for them to have cooked the steak, or that when you order a steak from a restaurant they usually cook it, does not change the fact that what the waiter brought to the table is a raw steak.
The fact that the Rule, as written, is broken does not mean it dosn't make sense, it means it's broken and needs to be fixed. You are trying to fix it by claiming that it's not really broken, just unclear, fixing it, and then saying it was like that the entire time.
Do you get what I'm saying here.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-30, 03:03 PM
Here's a question, can he take the level and not take the damn ability? Since it goes one of two ways to my mind,

a. He takes it for an uberspell, pays once and has a broken usage of an uberspell, bad for game balance and endless arguments
b. He takes it for a non-uberspell in which case it's not worth the higher level slot frankly, the reason the Archmage is so cool is that he can trade a 5th for a higher level slot NOT a LOWER one.Again, the best use is Limited Wish, which isn't awesome. It's very good, but since you're basically sacking an 8th level slot for any 2 6th level spells, cast spontaneously. It's still decent, something good, but not game breaking.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-30, 03:10 PM
Isn't Simulcrum better than limited wish sometimes?
As a spell-like ability he doesn't need the flesh of the creature to copy it I think.

Sliver
2009-11-30, 03:38 PM
Is it really unclear, by RAW, what it means? If the quotes are correct, then the line that tells you the xp payment references the inscribing costs, not the SLA using. It is probably not RAI, and is not balanced compared to what we are somewhat used to, but that is RAW, which will rarely be used, but still RAW. The argument I read against it is that it is not balanced, and this isn't against it being RAW, but against such reading in general.

sofawall
2009-11-30, 03:42 PM
Someone mentioned the paragraph at the start of full casters, how it is always spelled out, every time.

Do me a favour. Go read Arcane Trickster, Loremaster and Archmage for me. Read their paragraphs on the topic very closely. They are all different. It is either a massive editing mistake or WotC has no idea what they are doing.

/tangent

Iku Rex
2009-11-30, 03:44 PM
You say "RAW makes no sense because it's unbalanced", I say "RAW makes sense, but it's unbalanced". No.

No, no, no. :smallsmile:

The written rule is a sentence that, seen alone, can support both our interpretations. So far, this is the RAW. You say that the intent is clear from the paragraph the rule is in. I say that the intent is better inferred by how the rule would interact with the rest of the DnD rules.

(Simplification.)

Here, at the risk of being overly metaphorical, here is what is happening.

I order a steak, the waiter brings me out a slab of raw meat. I say "This meat is not cooked, it should be cooked, so I will cook it myself". You are saying "It makes no sense for the waiter to bring out raw meat. When you usually order a Steak they cook it and bring it to you, and steaks taste better cooked. Therefore, this steak must be cooked".

The problem with your example is that we are, as a basic premise of the example, brought raw meat. I'm saying we don't know for sure.

Let's try my version.

You order a steak and the waiter brings you some meat covered in gravy on a plate. You can't tell if it's cooked or not. However, you notice that it's surrounded by RAW (!) fruit and vegetables. So you conclude that the steak must be raw as well, and leave in a huff to make your own dinner.

I'm in the same situation. However, I'm thinking that the restaurant is unlikely to just serve a customer a slab of raw meat when he orders steak. So the meat is most likely cooked, regardless of its surroundings.

(And of course, in this example there is no chance of ending up "eating raw meat". Since we agree on what the best rule is, that's what we'll both "eat", no matter what the "kitchen" [WotC] actually sent out, or thought they sent out.)

sofawall
2009-11-30, 03:54 PM
I order a steak, the waiter brings me out a slab of raw meat. I say "This meat is not cooked, it should be cooked, so I will cook it myself". You are saying "It makes no sense for the waiter to bring out raw meat. When you usually order a Steak they cook it and bring it to you, and steaks taste better cooked. Therefore, this steak must be cooked".
We are not arguing about whether steaks should be cooked, we are arguing about whether this particular steak is cooked. The fact that they should have cooked the steak, or that it makes more sense for them to have cooked the steak, or that when you order a steak from a restaurant they usually cook it, does not change the fact that what the waiter brought to the table is a raw steak.

I like the metaphor.

Optimystik
2009-11-30, 03:58 PM
I like the metaphor.

Whereas I prefer Iku Rex's.

And for unrelated reasons, now have a hankering for steak.

crazedloon
2009-11-30, 04:08 PM
The written rule is a sentence that, seen alone, can support both our interpretations. So far, this is the RAW. You say that the intent is clear from the paragraph the rule is in. I say that the intent is better inferred by how the rule would interact with the rest of the DnD rules.


RAW is how the entire rule is written not particular parts of a rule, in this case the rule is the entire paragraph and the on which follows it.

You are not inferring how the rule interacts with other rules, you are making a comparison of two "like" abilities. I say "like" because the only thing that makes them like is the fact that they cause a loss of a spell slot and they result in a spell like ability. Interaction would be for example how a antimagic field interacts with a spell, i.e. where the rules of each piece (in this case the spells) are read and compared.

edit:
also if you would like to stick with you "like" ability comparison it would be best to actually break them down as apposed to just saying they are alike

each has a cost for gaining the ability:
archmage:
a 5th level spell slot
a spell slot equal to the level of the SLA

RuneSmith:
20x the cost of the material component
1x the xp component
1x the focus cost
1 spell slot 1 level higher then the spell level of the SLA

each has a means of using the ability
archmage:
cast as a spell like ability with the addition of xp cost and xp in place of the gp cost

Runesmith:
cast as a SLA

each has the costs and the manner in which it is used spelled out in simple sentences group in paragraphs where like pieces are also spelled out

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-30, 04:11 PM
From the description so far of the wording, it does indeed seem clear that there is no XP cost for using the SLA, and that it the XP cost mentioned is for inscribing the Rune in the first place. Given that it is in a paragraph about inscribing the rune in the first place, and not in the paragraph about using the ability.

Also, Metaphor 2 doesn't make any sense.

BRC
2009-11-30, 04:12 PM
No.

No, no, no. :smallsmile:

The written rule is a sentence that, seen alone, can support both our interpretations. So far, this is the RAW. You say that the intent is clear from the paragraph the rule is in. I say that the intent is better inferred by how the rule would interact with the rest of the DnD rules.

(Simplification.)


The problem with your example is that we are, as a basic premise of the example, brought raw meat. I'm saying we don't know for sure.

Let's try my version.

You order a steak and the waiter brings you some meat covered in gravy on a plate. You can't tell if it's cooked or not. However, you notice that it's surrounded by RAW (!) fruit and vegetables. So you conclude that the steak must be raw as well, and leave in a huff to make your own dinner.

I'm in the same situation. However, I'm thinking that the restaurant is unlikely to just serve a customer a slab of raw meat when he orders steak. So the meat is most likely cooked, regardless of its surroundings.

(And of course, in this example there is no chance of ending up "eating raw meat". Since we agree on what the best rule is, that's what we'll both "eat", no matter what the "kitchen" [WotC] actually sent out, or thought they sent out.)
It appears the issue has come down to you saying the sentence about XP costs is ambiguous in terms of whether it applies every time or just when the rune is inscribed. I say it's clearly the former. Everything that can be said about this has been said. Also, I have wasted multiple precious hours arguing this instead of working on the really really big project I have due this thursday, ergo I must leave.

If I return and attempt to continue arguing, I encourage you to dismiss me by saying "GO WORK ON YOUR MARINE BIOLOGY PRESENTATION". Please do not respond to any of my arguments in any serious manner as this will only encourage me.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-30, 04:20 PM
It appears the issue has come down to you saying the sentence about XP costs is ambiguous in terms of whether it applies every time or just when the rune is inscribed. I say it's clearly the former. Everything that can be said about this has been said. Also, I have wasted multiple precious hours arguing this instead of working on the really really big project I have due this thursday, ergo I must leave.

If I return and attempt to continue arguing, I encourage you to dismiss me by saying "GO WORK ON YOUR MARINE BIOLOGY PRESENTATION". Please do not respond to any of my arguments in any serious manner as this will only encourage me.

Indeed, it seems clear that it is the former.
Also;

GO WORK ON YOUR MARINE BIOLOGY PRESENTATION.
I see you there, now get!

ocdscale
2009-11-30, 05:19 PM
No.
Let's try my version.
You order a steak and the waiter brings you some meat covered in gravy on a plate. You can't tell if it's cooked or not. However, you notice that it's surrounded by RAW (!) fruit and vegetables. So you conclude that the steak must be raw as well, and leave in a huff to make your own dinner.


This analogy doesn't work because the cooked state of the fruit/vegetables don't have a strong a correlation with the cooked state of the meet. Language is very different.

An example:
"These are things I do in the morning after I wake up at home. I get out of my bed. I clean up. I eat breakfast. I sort my client's files. I leave home and go to work"

Now, as written, do I sort the files at home or at my workplace? I concede there is some ambiguity involved. I do not state that the list is strict chronological order, only that they all occur sometime after waking up. I certainly don't say "I sort my client's files at home."

My understanding of your argument (please correct me if I am wrong or incomplete):
There is ambiguity.
Other people in my position keep their client's files at their workplace due to legal regulations, therefore I would not imply that I sort my client's files at home because it has the possibility of creating problems for me.
Therefore the best interpretation is that I intended to say I sort the files at work.

I certainly don't think your argument is entirely wrong.
In fact there is a canon of statutory interpretation judges use that basically says: "If the way you are reading the law results in something that is absurd, then you are probably reading it the wrong way."
Absurd basically meaning "there's no way the people who wrote this rule actually intended for this result."

But absurdity/imbalance is not RAW. I definitely don't think RAW is the best version of the rules, but if pressed to explain the Runesmith RAW, I have a lot of difficulty accepting your argument.

My argument:
This section begins with "things I do at home" and ends with leaving the home.
The sorting of files occurs before the section describing leaving the home.
Therefore the best interpretation is that it occurs during the home.

Analogize to the current situation, where the section begins with "things you need to do to inscribe" and ends with "what you can do after inscription."
Please note, I disagree with your assertion that the section can be characterized as "costs associated with the ability" because it states very specifically
To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune.
It is a very narrow focus on the requirements of inscription, not the uses (which comes at the very end of the section).

Lamech
2009-11-30, 06:48 PM
Lets see we have a bunch of "If A then B" statements in the ablity description. 'Now we have a few ways to interpert it.
So we can say we check them once, that after he has completed those things he no longer must concern him self with those statements. I.E. "If it is raining, grab an umbrella." We assume the person must only grab the umbrella once.
We can say it is a consent, and the character must do it until the having a focus or xp cost changes. In which case he must expend infinite XP and the ablity doesn't work by RAW.
We can say it is associated with the requirements of scribing the rune, and it affects the requirements because the requirments are the subject of what happened right before it, and say those statements are part of a list modifying the reqs. So if the spell has an XP cost, the requirment for scribing a rune changes. For example making a limited wish rune means it has a extra requirment of spending 300xp.

Iku Rex, you seem to think that the "If A then B" somehow applies when the rune is used, despite the complete lack of any indication that it does. "Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day." I see no indication it has any other requirments. OTOH it is common in the english language to put if then statements after "something" to modify the original "something". Why not apply the "If/then" to the first time he uses it each day, or every time he makes a saving throw? There is no indication what so ever the "If/then" applies to the sentence that comes after it.

Magnor Criol
2009-12-01, 12:35 AM
This thread needs renaming to "The Runesmith: Argument constructions rock!"

Levithix
2009-12-01, 01:49 AM
Is it to much to ask to open a thread titled after a class you find interesting and expect discussion about the class rather then pointless bickering about if paragraphs mean anything in English?

If you think that for some reason you have to pay the xp cost every time, why do you feel the need to continue this argument? I was hoping for discussion of interesting spells to be used for runesmith and was to take advantage of the armor.

Human Paragon 3
2009-12-01, 02:53 AM
In general, I agree, although the OP did bring up the semantics question.

I am very interested in the dwarven duskblade/wizard/runesmith/ultimate magus build mentioned on the first page. If you take one level of ultimate magus then go into runesmith, can you have runesmith advance ultimate magus (thereby increasing Duskblade and Wizard)?

arguskos
2009-12-01, 03:03 AM
In general, I agree, although the OP did bring up the semantics question.

I am very interested in the dwarven duskblade/wizard/runesmith/ultimate magus build mentioned on the first page. If you take one level of ultimate magus then go into runesmith, can you have runesmith advance ultimate magus (thereby increasing Duskblade and Wizard)?
No. The trick is that UM itself does not have casting, it merely advances actual casting from Duskblade and Wizard. A prestige class can only advance true spellcasting ability, not advance the advancement! That'd be Madness! SPARTA!!!!!! *kicks*

Human Paragon 3
2009-12-01, 10:04 AM
The most obvious advantage to runesmith is casting in full armor. Ok. So you're a wizard who casts in heavy armor. What armor do you wear and why? What enchantments do you put on it? How about a shield?

Grumman
2009-12-01, 01:02 PM
The most obvious advantage to runesmith is casting in full armor. Ok. So you're a wizard who casts in heavy armor. What armor do you wear and why? What enchantments do you put on it? How about a shield?
Glassteel Mechanus gear. You're a dwarf anyway, so why not walk around in +13 AC superheavy plate?