Question on White Raven Tactics

[blackmage5242]

Are you counted as your own ally? I need references to show that you do or you do not.

[Heatwizard]

Technically, yes, but I feel compelled to warn you that WRT on yourself is just going to make your DM angry.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Player's Handbook glossary:

ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself.

[Elric VIII]

Technically, yes, but I feel compelled to warn you that WRT on yourself is just going to make your DM angry.

Yeah, just use Arcane Swordsage and Celerity, instead.

[blackmage5242]

Thanks for the reference. That will help alot. Actually it is more for my stances that affects allies. I just want them to also affect self. White Raven Tactics will only be used on allies, to avoid DM rock fall.

[molten_dragon]

Player's Handbook glossary:

ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself.

Most is the operative word here. RAW on whether you can WRT yourself is unclear because of it. I don't think it was ever intended that you be able to use it on yourself.

[tyckspoon]

This is D&D. "Most" means "everything except where we specifically tell you otherwise." White Raven Tactics does not have an exception to that most, ergo you are your own ally for purposes of that maneuver and anything else that says 'your allies' or 'select an ally.' (WRT has a specific comment in one or another of the secondary commentary sources that you should probably disallow using it on yourself for balance purposes, but that's entirely a balancing houserule thing and not rooted in the rules.)

[Yora]

This is also D&D, a game where sometimes things are written in a way that is ambigous in its meaning and says something in the letter of the words, that seems an awful lot like not being at all what the spirit of the words would most probably have been.

[ClothedInVelvet]

This is also D&D, a game where sometimes things are written in a way that is ambigous in its meaning and says something in the letter of the words, that seems an awful lot like not being at all what the spirit of the words would most probably have been.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying 1) D&D is sometimes ambiguous, and 2) the RAI sometimes conflicts with the RAW.

Both are true, but I think this is a time when RAW is not ambiguous. Tyckspoon is right in his interpretation of "in most cases" leaving room for exceptions. But it's not ambiguous. It's a reserved game term.

Most likely, someone used the reserved game term when they should have used "companions" or "comrades". It's a whoops, and it's a case of RAI and RAW being at odds, but the rules do come down on one side.

[Yora]

My point is that RAW is not god.

When it comes to RAW, you can analyze it to the point where everyone has to agree that this is what is written in the description, while with RAI there's nothing you can say to convince someone who says "Well. I don't think so."
But in an actual game, things should be run by the GMs RAI. If as a GM, you think that a rule is just written badly or incomplete, you should not stick to RAW.

[molten_dragon]

This is D&D. "Most" means "everything except where we specifically tell you otherwise."

Is that in a book somewhere? If not, then it isn't RAW, it's just your interpretation.

[Darrin]

Is that in a book somewhere? If not, then it isn't RAW, it's just your interpretation.

If the Glossary doesn't specifically define the exceptions to "in most cases", then the clearest unambigious interpretation of RAW would be: "most" means "in all cases unless otherwise explicitly specified by the rules".

[Shadowleaf]

Is that in a book somewhere? If not, then it isn't RAW, it's just your interpretation.I think it's pretty clear: In most cases, you are counted as your own ally. WRT doesn't say you don't count as your own ally, therefore you do. In some cases the text specifically says you don't count as your own ally, ergo "in most cases".

[Need_A_Life]

It all goes back to specifics trumphing general statements.

Example:
"Spells are cast as either arcane or divine" (paraphrased)
"An artificers [spells] are neither arcane or divine in nature" (paraphrased)
The first rule would be a blanket statement, whereas artificers are the exception.

As to the original question:
Assume that you are your own ally (barring psychic instability or excessive paranoia), unless doing so would be stupid (like with White Raven Tactics).

Roleplaying should follow K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid!), whenever possible.
'sides, with White Raven, does it seem to be in the flavour that the commander tells his troops to charge the enemy without following himself? No? Then he gets to charge :smallbiggrin:

[Morph Bark]

Even if White Raven Tactics cannot be used on yourself, you just get yourself a party member who also has it. Action tennis!

[tonberrian]

For completeness, it should be mentioned that there was an Ask Wizards question where this came up and Wizards said that in this case, you do not count as your ally.

I only mention this for completeness, not to say whether I agree or disagree with the ruling.

[molten_dragon]

If the Glossary doesn't specifically define the exceptions to "in most cases", then the clearest unambigious interpretation of RAW would be: "most" means "in all cases unless otherwise explicitly specified by the rules".

In other words, no, that is not in print anywhere. I'm not arguing whether this is a valid interpretation or not, just clearing up that "most means you can do it unless something specifically states otherwise" is not RAW.

[Daftendirekt]

Funny that most people seem to be saying "Yes, 'allies' does include yourself" since in 4th edition you are quite specifically never your own ally. If something affects or can affect you, it will be Target: Personal.

[Morph Bark]

Funny that most people seem to be saying "Yes, 'allies' does include yourself" since in 4th edition you are quite specifically never your own ally. If something affects or can affect you, it will be Target: Personal.

3.5 =/= 4E.

[Daftendirekt]

The logic of it is still there. You're not your own ally. You're you. Ally implies not first person. If WRT wanted the user to be able to target themselves, it would have Target: You or One Ally instead of Target: One Ally.

[Kaje]

Except that in 3.5 you explicitly are your own ally in most circumstances. Logic be damned.

[Philistine]

For completeness, it should be mentioned that there was an Ask Wizards question where this came up and Wizards said that in this case, you do not count as your ally.

I only mention this for completeness, not to say whether I agree or disagree with the ruling.
Are you certain? I don't have linkage to hand, but I seem to recall CustServ going the other way (with said ruling most often being described as "sketchy").


In other words, no, that is not in print anywhere. I'm not arguing whether this is a valid interpretation or not, just clearing up that "most means you can do it unless something specifically states otherwise" is not RAW.
Bad(?) news: WotC didn't go publish a dictionary of game-specific definitions for every word used in the rulebooks. The word "most," for example, isn't (re)defined anywhere. So when the text says, "you count as your own ally in most cases," then "assume this is true any time you don't have specific information to the contrary" isn't an interpretation because there's nothing to interpret: that's simply what the words mean. Maybe this was supposed to be nerfed in errata, but the RAW as-is is not ambiguous.

[molten_dragon]

Bad(?) news: WotC didn't go publish a dictionary of game-specific definitions for every word used in the rulebooks. The word "most," for example, isn't (re)defined anywhere. So when the text says, "you count as your own ally in most cases," then "assume this is true any time you don't have specific information to the contrary" isn't an interpretation because there's nothing to interpret: that's simply what the words mean. Maybe this was supposed to be nerfed in errata, but the RAW as-is is not ambiguous.

I'm not sure what dictionary you're pulling that definition out of, but the commonly accepted definition of the word 'most' is 'the majority of something, but not all'. That's it. If you choose to interpret it as "any time that it is not contradicted by something specific" then that's fine, I won't argue with your interpretation, but it's idiotic to argue that the word 'most' means that. 'Most' is not that specific.

Your interpretation of the way the rules are worded, no matter how much sense it makes and how intuitive it is does not make that interpretation RAW.

[Douglas]

D&D 3.5e has a design philosophy of trying to minimize the number of subjective judgment calls required with regard to the rules of the game. Given that context, the only meaningful way to interpret "most" as a rule rather than purely a descriptive statement is that it sets the default. Interpreting it otherwise requires either excluding it from the system's body of rules or substantially increasing the number of subjective judgment calls required to run the game. Neither of these options is compatible with 3.5's design principles (yes, I am well aware that said principles are not explicitly stated in the books; they still exist and are easily inferred from trends in what gets published), so "most" is almost certainly intended to mean "always except for when we say otherwise" plus an implication that such statements to the contrary may be more common than usual.

[molten_dragon]

so "most" is almost certainly intended to mean "always except for when we say otherwise" plus an implication that such statements to the contrary may be more common than usual.

Bolded for emphasis. We're leaving the realm of RAW, and entering the realm of RAI.

[DonutBoy12321]

Hehe, I always like using the Dragon Compendium race where you play two psychic twins who act as one being. Have one twin use WRT on the other.

[dextercorvia]

1. Obtain a familiar.
2. Take ranks in ride -- these will be shared by your familiar.
3. Let your familiar ride in a saddle on your shoulder.
4. Counting as its mount, you now act on your familiar's turn.
5. Use WRT on your familiar.
6. ???
7. Profit.

[Lateral]

Yeah, just use Arcane Swordsage and Celerity, instead.

HAHAHAHAHA

[Helldog]

Some spells, abilities or maneuvers specifically say that they affect your allies and you. In this case I would say that a spell, ability or maneuver affects only your allies if it doesn't specifically say that it also affect you.
Here's an example of what I mean:

A bard with 3 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use song or poetics to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), (...)