Ask a Frustrated Question by RAI

[willpell]

Can someone tell me why in the name of holy hell a Longbow and a Shortbow require separate Martial Weapon proficiencies?

(This not being enough of a topic for a thread in and of itself, I am titling the thread to serve as a general rantorium for inexplicable rules questions and speculative solutions, since the Simple Question by RAW thread doesn't allow them.)

[Vizzerdrix]

Can someone tell me why in the name of holy hell a Longbow and a Shortbow require separate Martial Weapon proficiencies?

The pull, stance and aiming method are different. Short bows can be used from horseback (a part of their training) and long bows are better in a traditional volley situation (part of their training).

[TuggyNE]

Can someone tell me why in the name of holy hell a Longbow and a Shortbow require separate Martial Weapon proficiencies?

(This not being enough of a topic for a thread in and of itself, I am titling the thread to serve as a general rantorium for inexplicable rules questions and speculative solutions, since the Simple Question by RAW thread doesn't allow them.)

Similarly, why is Hand Crossbow an exotic weapon?

[limejuicepowder]

The pull, stance and aiming method are different. Short bows can be used from horseback (a part of their training) and long bows are better in a traditional volley situation (part of their training).

I still think the OP has a point: maybe there are nuances in usage, but it's still very much the same basic weapon. I would expect someone who is adept with one to be able to passably use the other.

Here's another example: mace and morning star. This is the exact same freakin' weapon. Throw club and light mace in there too.

In-game, weapon proficiency feats are mostly devastatingly bad, thus never worth taking. If they were made slightly more attractive by grouping weapons, I say go for it.

[Khedrac]

Multiple reasons (take your pick):

1) A Hand Crossbow probably requires a much more sophisticated and delicate trigger mechanism. Normal crossbows (and indeed early firearms) didn't have anything resmebling a modern trigger (as I understand it) - they had a lever you squeezed against the butt with the whole hand.
Treat a hand-crossbow the way you treat a normal one and you will break it.

2) Hand crossbows were probably invented for Drow fiction - I don't think they had historical existence except perhaps as toys.
As such they are supposed to be very rare and unusual. They are exotic weapons to reflect this rarity.

3) Although essentially a similar weapon in priniciple to a light crossbow they are the only "pistol-type" weapon in D&D. As such they have a unique aiming method (only ray spells and similar come close) and this justifies being exotic.

[Vizzerdrix]

Some weapons that appear similar I can understand being vastly different in use and training (Spears and polearms are one example of this) but what I'll never understand is why is the greatclub a martial weapon? And why are bastard swords exotic?

[Maryring]

It's supposed to be game balance, so that Rogues don't get their hands on that OP Longbow proficiency by getting their hands on Shortbow proficiency.

[Yuki Akuma]

Bastard swords are exotic only when wielded one-handed, because wielding a bastard sword one-handed is not the normal way to wield one. They're martial if used two-handed.

[willpell]

Do you think it would be reasonable to allow a character to purchase a masterwork cloak that would grant a +2 circumstance bonus to Hide checks for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100 gp (the price for various masterwork skill kits)? The Cloak of Elvenkind is a 2500-gp magic item and gives +5, but that seems appropriate since costs generally scale more or less quadratically with effectiveness (a +2 weapon costs well more than twice as much as a +1).

[Roguenewb]

I support masterwork everything kits for *every* skill. And yes, I do believe in items that let you somehow autohypnotize better.

But honestly, charge the normal price for masterwork tools (300gp I believe), and then a cloak of +2 masterwork hide seems totally reasonable.

[ericgrau]

For a RAI/RAMS answer I'd be careful about masterwork tools that make no sense at all. Even if you say "Woooo, the cloak is dark", why in the 9 hells would a cloak cost so much just because it's black? Instead recognize that masterwork tools are the "perfect tool for the job" and thus grant a circumstance bonus. That is, they must be a good fit and they're an extension of the DM fudge rule that allows a +2/-2 circumstance bonus depending on favorable/unfavorable circumstances. Instead I'd do:

Camouflage Outfit, 30 gp: this outfit of wavy green and brown hues is perfect for blending into foliage and grants a +2 circumstance bonus to hide in undergrowth, woods and other plant-filled natural terrain.
Dark Explorer's Outfit, 10 gp: This all black explorer's outfit is perfect for prowling at night and grants a +2 circumstance bonus to hide in shadowy illumination.
Etc.

Well made and expensive padded shoes for a +2 circumstance bonus to move silently regardless of the terrain are fairly reasonable IMO though. I think some book even has them. The generic unlimited use 50 gp 1 lb. masterwork tool rule for unlisted skills seems like more of a guideline; it doesn't even fit the existing tools. To play by RAI/RAMS I'd try to explain any new MW tool in a way that doesn't make a DM raise his eyebrow.

You could also do a +2 hide magic cloak for 400 gp.

[Talya]

I support masterwork everything kits for *every* skill.

For some reason, I read this as "masterwork kilts for *every* skill."


Which is oddly amusing.

[ericgrau]

Appraise: kilt with magnifying glasses, calipers, etc. hanging from it
Balance: evenly weighted kilt
Climb: hooked kilt. -2 "gaaaw" penalty to climb checks of those below you.
Concentration: Loose kilt that lets you "breathe"
Diplomacy: works on scottish NPCs
Disguise: Everyone thinks you're a foreigner.
Hide: Cross your legs in a way that makes everyone look away
... These are exaggerations of what I mean by eyebrow raising MW tool descriptions btw

[willpell]

There are a lot of kits in the Arms and Equipment guide, and most of them only add their bonus to one application of a skill; I haven't closely scrutinized the prices. Also it pains me that the Healer's Kit in the corebook comes with only 10 uses.

[Maryring]

I support masterwork everything kits for *every* skill. And yes, I do believe in items that let you somehow autohypnotize better.

But honestly, charge the normal price for masterwork tools (300gp I believe), and then a cloak of +2 masterwork hide seems totally reasonable.

What you need is a pair of Groucho Marx glasses

[Answerer]

No one here can answer any question "by Rules As Intended." It's impossible to know what the authors meant to write unless, of course, we assume that they meant to write what they actually wrote. Barring those very, very few cases where the authors have written clarifications outside of the books/errata (a very few FAQ entries are written by the actual authors, for example).

[grarrrg]

But honestly, charge the normal price for masterwork tools (300gp I believe), and then a cloak of +2 masterwork hide seems totally reasonable.

Oh, now SKILLS have to be Masterwork to be useful now?
What next? Mounts? Familiars?

[ajfonty]

I've always chuckled how a Great Crossbow is an exotic weapon. If anything, make a strength requirement to use it; how much different could it be to shoot? Being heavier than a regular crossbow only takes getting used to for the first couple shots.

[Kish]

Oh, now SKILLS have to be Masterwork to be useful now?
What next? Mounts? Familiars?
Characters.

[Misery Esquire]

Characters.

That was certainly a Masterwork Anwser.

[willpell]

No one here can answer any question "by Rules As Intended." It's impossible to know what the authors meant to write unless, of course, we assume that they meant to write what they actually wrote. Barring those very, very few cases where the authors have written clarifications outside of the books/errata (a very few FAQ entries are written by the actual authors, for example).

Perhaps it should be RAOC - Rules As Obviously Correct. There are many cases where RAW just cannot possibly be right (such as saying you need a divine focus to cast certain arcane spells, for instance). When the rulebook and common sense disagree, RAW says the rulebook wins, but RAOC knows better. (Granted, common sense can be a little hard to arbitrate when A Wizard Did It, but still, logic and reason apply to a fair extent in most cases. When five spells all say Animal's Attribute and call for a piece of the animal, and a sixth says Animal's Attribute and calls for a divine focus, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is clearly a misprint.)

[Yuki Akuma]

Your opinion of what is "obviously correct" will not be the same as everyone else's. That's the point. That's why we use RAW, because it's objective, not subjective.

[willpell]

Except that it's not. The whole point of common sense is that it's common sense; anybody who's trying to be sensible will see it. Cleaving to RAW is the province of those who aren't interested in trying to be reasonable or see another side; you'll notice that those who advocate a by-the-book interpretation of such cases very seldom bother to explain any reasonable in-universe way that it could make sense to do it the other way. They just want to use the RAW as a club to beat their opponents into silence, out of a spiteful determination to oppose any position that someone else (who might just maybe be smarter or more perceptive than them) thought up first. Right and wrong are never objective; that's the whole reason you need to talk things through and come up with a consensus. Otherwise, a wrong answer gets upheld as RAW and is used to actively prevent things from getting better.

[Ravens_cry]

Your opinion of what is "obviously correct" will not be the same as everyone else's. That's the point. That's why we use RAW, because it's objective, not subjective.
Except when it is when the game uses none-jargon words in none-fluff situation's, thanks to the vagaries of language.

[Answerer]

The whole point of common sense is that it's common sense; anybody who's trying to be sensible will see it.
False. No two (perfectly sensible) people will agree that all the same things are common sense. "Common sense" is effectively a myth, and is meaningless in a debate.

You can post what makes sense to you. You can back up this position with reasoning and with evidence.

But you cannot simply assert that it is "common sense" or "obviously what the designer's intended" and be done with it. That is not defending your position, that is, effectively, insulting anyone who disagrees with you (because if your position is common sense or obvious, then anyone who disagrees with you is nonsensical or oblivious) and hoping no one will call you on it.

And I am calling you on it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Except that it's not. The whole point of common sense is that it's common sense; anybody who's trying to be sensible will see it.

Calling it "common sense" is rather insulting, considering it implies that anyone who disagrees with you isn't being sensible.

Everyone thinks differently. Everyone's definition of 'common sense' is different. There is no single objective way for humans to judge ideas. Everyone has their own unique biases and values.

No one is saying that you shouldn't use house rules. Everyone uses house rules. But don't assume that your house rules are the way everybody plays the game, because that is ridiculous.

We use RAW as a baseline because RAW is a baseline. It gives everyone somewhere to start from, rather than arguing about their own house rules for ten pages before the discussion can actually start.

[Kane0]

Can someone explain to be how intimidating in Pathfinder works? The way I see it is I roll intimidate, you are affected based on hit dice with modifiers attached. Now if i was bluffing you there is a sense motive check, but this is apparently not the case with intimidate.

How about a will save? A save vs fear? An opposing intimidate check? Do any of these make sense at all?

Especially since using this method you cannot feasibly use intimidate to get out of a tough situation, only bluff or possibly diplomacy can do that :smallannoyed:

[willpell]

False. No two (perfectly sensible) people will agree that all the same things are common sense. "Common sense" is effectively a myth, and is meaningless in a debate.

You can post what makes sense to you. You can back up this position with reasoning and with evidence.

But you cannot simply assert that it is "common sense" or "obviously what the designer's intended" and be done with it. That is not defending your position, that is, effectively, insulting anyone who disagrees with you (because if your position is common sense or obvious, then anyone who disagrees with you is nonsensical or oblivious) and hoping no one will call you on it.

And I am calling you on it.

I hope nothing of the sort, and I deny your claim that it is a myth. There is absolutely a common ground for reasonable judgment, and anyone who cannot see it is being unreasonable, and I don't care if they're insulted by it. We live in an age where it has become fashionable to pretend all people are equal, but the bottom line is that some people are just plain stupid, and affording equal validity to everyone guarantees that their stupidity will be weighed equally to intelligent reasoning, and used to obfuscate the truth. It is false, it is unacceptible, it is destructive to society and it insults people who actually try to not deserve insulting, people who are in a capacity to act for the benefit of society. I won't stand for it.

[Answerer]

You do realize that I am criticizing you for stating that your opinions are above judgment, right? That you are guilty of exactly what you are complaining about?

I mean, my entire argument is that use of RAI as a logical fallacy is an attempt to pull an end-run on others' critical thinking, by asserting the unfalsifiable and unproven statement that your position is what the designers meant to write (when they did not, in fact, write it). You are claiming an unwarranted superior position and asserting no need to defend your own claims on the basis of this superior position.

So you are the one who wants their arguments to be taken seriously as "intelligent reasoning" when you have given no reasoning of any kind whatsoever, intelligent or otherwise.

Also, I'd take more care with your words. Prior to that post, I assumed you did not intend the implication that was in your previous posts. That post came very close to explicitly stating that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I will continue to assume that this is not what you are intending to state; if it is, I have nothing more to say to you, but I do think you'd be better off not continuing this line of argument yourself.

[Ravens_cry]

We . . .are not mind readers. Authorial intent is difficult to judge at the best of times, though FAQ can give idea what they intended it to mean.
In my opinion, RAI, and even RAW to a degree, is something that is going to vary from game to game, group to group, even campaign to campaign, like optimization.

[Answerer]

We . . .are not mind readers. Authorial intent is difficult to judge at the best of times, though FAQ can give idea what they intended it to mean.
The FAQ could, if it were written by the authors or if the Sage had bothered to ask them what they meant more often. Unfortunately, these things happened very rarely; most of the time, the Sage appears to have just pulled an answer out of his ass.


In my opinion, RAI, and even RAW to a degree, is something that is going to vary from game to game, group to group, even campaign to campaign, like optimization.
A nitpick.

RAW only changes if what is written changes, i.e. an Errata is released. Otherwise, RAW stays the same, even if it's "still ambiguous"; interpretations change.

RAI only changes if the designer changes his mind; considering that they've all long since moved on to other things, they probably haven't given it a conscious thought in years (in the case of 3.5; in the case of PF maybe RAI has changed), but it almost doesn't matter since we almost never know what RAI was in the first place or that it's changed.

Actually, you could argue that RAI doesn't change even if the author changes his mind (barring an Errata), since "Rules As Intended" implies "intended at the time of writing." By this definition, RAI is immutable, but still (almost entirely) uncertain.


The long and short of it is this: if you are assuming, for any reason, that the authors did not mean to write what they actually wrote, you need to back that up. In a lot of cases it's trivial: I doubt it is RAI that Monks lack proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, seeing as they get all sorts of bonuses to Unarmed Strikes. I really doubt it was intended that drowning can heal you, since that's an odd corner-case that one can easily imagine the authors hadn't considered. But in other cases, it's not so simple, and in all cases, you need to back up your claims.

Otherwise you're just making random assertions about others' intentions, which is never a good idea, and adding the implied insult that anyone who disagrees with you is nonsensical, oblivious, or stupid.

And barring any convincing reasons to the contrary, I for one will always assume that the authors meant to write what they actually wrote. Doesn't mean I play that way; there's lots of things that seem fully intentional that I think are just flat-out bad ideas. Which is OK; 3.5 is not a game to be played by RAW or RAI, I think, but rather as a sort of interpretative custom-tailored deal that fits your group.

[BShammie]

Can someone explain to be how intimidating in Pathfinder works? The way I see it is I roll intimidate, you are affected based on hit dice with modifiers attached. Now if i was bluffing you there is a sense motive check, but this is apparently not the case with intimidate.

Now I'm not as familiar with Pathfinder as I'd like to be, but I am familiar with 3.5 which Pathfinder is based off of, so I hope my answer is still helpful.

If you Bluff the target gets to roll a Sense Motive check to see if you're telling the truth, which is different than Intimidate or Diplomacy.
With Intimidate and Diplomacy you roll to change their attitude towards you, so the DC in this case acts sort of like armor class.
If you roll high enough to hit with an attack roll, then they become damaged.
If you roll high enough to "hit" with Intimidate, then they become friendly.


How about a will save? A save vs fear? An opposing intimidate check? Do any of these make sense at all?

A common houserule for Diplomacy is to make opposed rolls so I don't see an issue with doing this with Intimidate.


Especially since using this method you cannot feasibly use intimidate to get out of a tough situation, only bluff or possibly diplomacy can do that :smallannoyed:
The PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/intimidate) says that you can use Intimidate to influence their attitudes, so I think you can use Intimidate to get out of any situation you can use Diplomacy or Bluff to get out of.

[MukkTB]

The rules are probably intended to prevent weak martial characters from using weapons intended for strong martial characters regardless of what actually makes sense. Things with bigger damage dice, reach, or larger critical threat ranges. I've heard expert testimony that some of the weapons on the simple list are harder to learn then some on the martial list. The sling comes to mind.

[Ravens_cry]

@Answerer
Words mean different things.
One meaning can lead to radically different conclusions for RAW than another.
For a very basic, yet deeply divergent example, the word 'or'.
It can mean one or another or both (in fact, this is its use in Boolean logic) or it can mean exclusive or, one or another but not both (in Boolean logic this is XOR, exclusive or).
Going strict RAW, both are valid, English uses the same word for both, yet the results for the game are shatteringly different.
This is what I meant by "RAW varies from game to game".
Therefore, what is RAI also varies since we don't have a tap to their heads on what they intended. Sometimes the RAW is so badly done we can tell what was intended, drowning was almost certainly not meant to be a negative hitpoints reset.
But all too often, we can't really tell.
Snce such judgement can change how a build works, it means that RAI is also variant.
Optimization comfort levels also enter into it.
An interpretation that creates a power level the group is not comfortable with is going to be more likely rejected than one that is more moderate, and vise versa.

[Ashtagon]

Can someone explain to be how intimidating in Pathfinder works? The way I see it is I roll intimidate, you are affected based on hit dice with modifiers attached. Now if i was bluffing you there is a sense motive check, but this is apparently not the case with intimidate.

How about a will save? A save vs fear? An opposing intimidate check? Do any of these make sense at all?

Especially since using this method you cannot feasibly use intimidate to get out of a tough situation, only bluff or possibly diplomacy can do that :smallannoyed:

Think of it this way, with a charm person, there is no "attack roll" -- just a Will save. This is normally handled as the defender roll on Will with a DC set by the GM (based on various rules). But logically, it could just as easily be done as an attack roll by the caster, trying to beat a static defence number based on the defender's Will save (indeed, this is exactly how 4e resolves the equivalent of 3e Will saves).

So casting a charm spell is a static attack number vs. a defence roll based on the defender's Will save.

In the case of the Intimidate skill, it is an attack roll of Intimidate vs. a static defence based on the defender's HD total.

Bluff is a attack roll of Bluff vs. a defence roll of Sense Motive.

Why some of these have attack rolls, some have defence rolls, and some have both... that is a mystery to me.

[Ashtagon]

Can someone explain to be how intimidating in Pathfinder works? The way I see it is I roll intimidate, you are affected based on hit dice with modifiers attached. Now if i was bluffing you there is a sense motive check, but this is apparently not the case with intimidate.

How about a will save? A save vs fear? An opposing intimidate check? Do any of these make sense at all?

Especially since using this method you cannot feasibly use intimidate to get out of a tough situation, only bluff or possibly diplomacy can do that :smallannoyed:

Think of it this way, with a charm person, there is no "attack roll" -- just a Will save. This is normally handled as the defender roll on Will with a DC set by the GM (based on various rules). But logically, it could just as easily be done as an attack roll by the caster, trying to beat a static defence number based on the defender's Will save (indeed, this is exactly how 4e resolves the equivalent of 3e Will saves).

So casting a charm spell is a static attack number vs. a defence roll based on the defender's Will save.

In the case of the Intimidate skill, it is an attack roll of Intimidate vs. a static defence based on the defender's HD total.

Bluff is a attack roll of Bluff vs. a defence roll of Sense Motive.

Why some of these have attack rolls, some have defence rolls, and some have both... that is a mystery to me.

[Zubrowka74]

On the longbow vs shortbow topic, I think the distinction is historical. If I recall correctly, medieval longbowmen needed special training. See the battle of Agincourt as an example.

[Ravens_cry]

@Ashtagon:
I guess because each create a different feel, though are statistically the same. Though one could create an active defence system where the defender rolls the die that is statistically the same as the present system, it would not feel the same. It would feel more out of the attacking parties hands, which could distance the players from the experience, as attacking is by definition practically an active role. Likewise, players making saves gives them a more active feel in the process, despite the results being statically identical.
It's more about video game mechanics, but the general idea of different mechanics creating different feels, or kinaesthetics as he puts it, is explored rather intriguingly here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrFK4NlGCo0&feature=relmfu).

[nedz]

Oh, now SKILLS have to be Masterwork to be useful now?
What next? Mounts? Familiars?

Slaves :smallbiggrin:

[gomipile]

Except that it's not. The whole point of common sense is that it's common sense; anybody who's trying to be sensible will see it. Cleaving to RAW is the province of those who aren't interested in trying to be reasonable or see another side; you'll notice that those who advocate a by-the-book interpretation of such cases very seldom bother to explain any reasonable in-universe way that it could make sense to do it the other way. They just want to use the RAW as a club to beat their opponents into silence, out of a spiteful determination to oppose any position that someone else (who might just maybe be smarter or more perceptive than them) thought up first. Right and wrong are never objective; that's the whole reason you need to talk things through and come up with a consensus. Otherwise, a wrong answer gets upheld as RAW and is used to actively prevent things from getting better.

I don't know what kind of people you've been playing with, but my groups use RAW as a tool to handle the majority of rule questions. If you know you'll be dealing with a lot of rules questions, its just easier to say "We'll go with RAW unless the story or Rule 0 demands otherwise.) Thus, we're not inflexible, but knowing the RAW for various situations is very helpful.

[Answerer]

Words mean different things.
One meaning can lead to radically different conclusions for RAW than another.
For a very basic, yet deeply divergent example, the word 'or'.
It can mean one or another or both (in fact, this is its use in Boolean logic) or it can mean exclusive or, one or another but not both (in Boolean logic this is XOR, exclusive or).
Going strict RAW, both are valid, English uses the same word for both, yet the results for the game are shatteringly different.
This is what I meant by "RAW varies from game to game".
I agree with everything here except that last quotation, which does not mean what you have stated you meant by it. (hey hey, here's a clear-cut case of "as intended" not matching "as written" with actual evidence!)

As I said, it was a nitpick, but what's changing is not the "rules as written" – the words on the page are going to stay exactly the same as they were when the book was printed (unless you have some very fancy books that I'm not aware of). What is changing is your interpretation of what is written – which is not quite the same thing. Both may be valid interpretations at the same time, but choosing one or the other doesn't change the rule as written: the rule as written simply remains ambiguous until errata changes it to something unambiguous.


Therefore, what is RAI also varies since we don't have a tap to their heads on what they intended. Sometimes the RAW is so badly done we can tell what was intended, drowning was almost certainly not meant to be a negative hitpoints reset.
But all too often, we can't really tell.
Snce such judgement can change how a build works, it means that RAI is also variant.
Optimization comfort levels also enter into it.
An interpretation that creates a power level the group is not comfortable with is going to be more likely rejected than one that is more moderate, and vise versa.
Again, this is interpretation, not the actual rule. We don't know the actual rule that the designers intended, but presumably they did have a particular thing in mind when they wrote what they did. The "rule as intended" is whatever they were thinking at the time, and that's not going to change as it's a matter of the past.

It was nitpicky, I know, but so long as I'm here talking about RAW and RAI as terms, it is best, I think, to try to hold everyone to the actual meaning of the words.


Also, I know in some (sadly few) cases, people use "RAI" as "Rules As Interpreted" – this is exactly what RAI should mean and more-or-less how it's intended, except that it seems to me that a lot of posters seem to be convinced that a particular interpretation is what was intended, which we cannot ever be certain is the case. Moreover, any particular interpretation of the rules, regardless of how it is come to, must be defended; too often posters merely assert a given interpretation is "as intended" and consider this position both obvious and not up for debate, which as I've said is an implied insult against anyone who thinks differently.

[Ravens_cry]

In that case, Answerer, Rules as Intended is a completely useless concept, being a complete unknown and only hypothesized and Rules as Written not much more helpful as the Rules as Written are a textual Necker Cube, either interpretation is logically valid, but creates differing results for actual play.
Just play, have fun, and don't eat the yellow snow.

[Answerer]

In that case, Answerer, Rules as Intended is a completely useless concept, being a complete unknown and only hypothesized
Bingo! Yes, RAI is utterly useless as a concept, and vaguely insulting to boot. People should stop using it.


Rules as Written not much more helpful as the Rules as Written are a textual Necker Cube, either interpretation is logically valid, but creates differing results for actual play.
Here I do not quite agree. The majority of the rules are fairly clear (not always good ideas, mind you, but mostly clear). Even some of the stupid cases that most everyone will stipulate were not intended, are still fairly unambiguous in their writing.

There are definitely ambiguous cases, however; in such cases, yes, RAW would be like unto the Necker cube.

[Toy Killer]

Okay, so a wight[A] spawns Wight[B1] and [B2], and Wight [B2] spawns Wight [C] who spawns Wight[D]. Wight[D] is at the bottom of the totem pole in the spawn Hierarchy. If he were to gain class levels, and chooses Evil Cleric (or for lesser effect, wizard) and uses Command Undead on Wight [B2]. Does he take over in B2's place on the totem pole? Does he unleash the entire chain except his newly acquired minion? Or do each of the Wights have the ability to stay in control of 'someone' no matter if any of them die?

Just a little bit of clarification on the Undead turning rules in regards to spawn and 'inherit' command.

[Ravens_cry]

Here I do not quite agree. The majority of the rules are fairly clear (not always good ideas, mind you, but mostly clear). Even some of the stupid cases that most everyone will stipulate were not intended, are still fairly unambiguous in their writing.

There are definitely ambiguous cases, however; in such cases, yes, RAW would be like unto the Necker cube.
Actually, I agree that most rules are indeed clear, or at least clear enough for actual play. When I say the rules are a Necker Cube, I refer to those incidents in their place in the rules as a whole.

[Answerer]

OK, well, yes, if you want to look at the rules as a whole and ask if, as a whole, a single definitive interpretation is required by them, then the answer is clearly no. Many cases, yes, but as a whole, there are plenty of ambiguities that allow for a fairly large number of possible valid interpretations. Namely, the product of the number possible valid interpretations of any given rule; good luck working that one out, but it is finite.

What this means is that we have a finite set of possibly valid interpretations of RAW. Being finite, we can be sure that there are also invalid interpretations (assuming we'll stipulate that there are infinitely many possible interpretations).

So while RAW cannot be pinned down to a singular interpretation, we can state that a given interpretation is, or is not, valid by RAW. And in the cases of many particular rules, we can in fact find a single valid interpretation.

[Ravens_cry]

Within limits.
Within said limits one still requires frequent adjudication.
Make no mistake, I think 3.X is a fun system, toeing an intriguing line between complexity and simplicity, simulation and abstraction, but the sheer number of possible logically valid interpretations of RAW is enough however that I stand by my statement that "Every groups RAW is different".

[Answerer]

Then you still stand by an inaccurate statement. The interpretation is not the RAW, the actual words written on the page are the rules as written. One group's valid interpretation may be different from another group's equally valid interpretation, but the rules as written themselves do not change from group to group; the interpretation is what changes.

[Ravens_cry]

Then you still stand by an inaccurate statement. The interpretation is not the RAW, the actual words written on the page are the rules as written. One group's valid interpretation may be different from another group's equally valid interpretation, but the rules as written themselves do not change from group to group; the interpretation is what changes.
Since the words can mean different things, then they are all of them at once until they are applied.
I am going to be pretentious and call it the RAW Uncertainty Principle

[Answerer]

I feel like I'm being unclear, but I do not know how to make it any clearer.

The "rules as written" are literally the words on the page, not what you or I or anyone else thinks they mean.

[willpell]

So your contention is that if the rules are somewhat clear, the only way to obey the RAW is to not resolve the situation at all? "Sorry, you just can't cast that spell because the Immutable Laws of the Cosmos do not specify an unambiguous outcome for its effects."

Also if you want to get really technical about it, the RAW devoid of ANY interpretation is completely meaningless; the Oxford English Dictionary is an interpretation. Without some form of arbitrary definition for what the funny squiggles all over the page translate to, a definition which inevitably MUST make a few judgment calls in cases where ambiguity exists, there can be no meaning whatsoever. You're just drawing a line higher than most people are by saying "don't interpret the RAW at all, do exactly what it says", because you can't actually obey that command yourself - you don't know exactly what the RAW says without your biased personal understanding of what English words mean, which is almost certainly not exactly the same as that of the authors. Short of telepathy we can never know exactly what someone meant by their specific word choices in any piece of writing; we just take our best guess, based on our past experiences in life and what we've been taught.

Which is exactly what I do when I interpret what's obviously mistaken about the RAW. When I say "obvious", I mean exactly that; it clearly can't mean what it appears to say. I don't question the rules when they sort of make sense; the Daze spell requires a piece of wool? No problem, I can squint and see why that should be necessary. But when an arcane spell calls for a divine component, when a wizard who screws the will of God six ways from Sunday every morning with his breakfast cereal is required to wave the holy symbol of said God before one of his spells will work, I say that's obviously a copy/paste error. We know such errors are common in Wizards' work, because they've already errata'ed several of them; they just didn't have time to catch them all, because they made mistakes even in the process of fixing their previous mistakes.

[Ravens_cry]

I feel like I'm being unclear, but I do not know how to make it any clearer.

The "rules as written" are literally the words on the page, not what you or I or anyone else thinks they mean.
The words on the page are meaningless without someone to read them. And when someone reads them, what they read will be potentially and almost certainly different from someone else.

[Answerer]

So your contention is that if the rules are somewhat clear, the only way to obey the RAW is to not resolve the situation at all? "Sorry, you just can't cast that spell because the Immutable Laws of the Cosmos do not specify an unambiguous outcome for its effects."
I cannot begin to guess what makes you think this is what I've been saying. It's not, not even remotely.


Also if you want to get really technical about it, the RAW devoid of ANY interpretation is completely meaningless; the Oxford English Dictionary is an interpretation. Without some form of arbitrary definition for what the funny squiggles all over the page translate to, a definition which inevitably MUST make a few judgment calls in cases where ambiguity exists, there can be no meaning whatsoever. You're just drawing a line higher than most people are by saying "don't interpret the RAW at all, do exactly what it says", because you can't actually obey that command yourself - you don't know exactly what the RAW says without your biased personal understanding of what English words mean, which is almost certainly not exactly the same as that of the authors. Short of telepathy we can never know exactly what someone meant by their specific word choices in any piece of writing; we just take our best guess, based on our past experiences in life and what we've been taught.
Yeaaah, I'm not sure of the relevance of any of this. I didn't say anything that suggests that one is not supposed to be making judgments about what the rules mean. I... am not going to respond to this other than to say that, because I really have nothing else to say on the matter. Your statements are responding to statements that I did not make.


Which is exactly what I do when I interpret what's obviously mistaken about the RAW. When I say "obvious", I mean exactly that; it clearly can't mean what it appears to say. I don't question the rules when they sort of make sense; the Daze spell requires a piece of wool? No problem, I can squint and see why that should be necessary. But when an arcane spell calls for a divine component, when a wizard who screws the will of God six ways from Sunday every morning with his breakfast cereal is required to wave the holy symbol of said God before one of his spells will work, I say that's obviously a copy/paste error. We know such errors are common in Wizards' work, because they've already errata'ed several of them; they just didn't have time to catch them all, because they made mistakes even in the process of fixing their previous mistakes.
And... yeah, none of this is relevant, other than your continued clinging to the word "obvious" which really has no place in any rational debate. I fail to see how Daze's material component is "obvious" since the material components in general are mostly stupid little jokes that don't really try to make sense. In any event, none of this addresses any point I've actually made, and attempts to put quite a few things in my mouth, which I reject. I will respond in detail when your post addresses my actual arguments, instead of arguments that I haven't made.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding certain spells' entries; in most cases the entries are stating that there is either an Arcane Material Component or a Divine Focus, depending on whether it's being cast as an Arcane or Divine spell. The rules explicitly explain this. It sounds like you think the entries are saying that arcanists need a divine focus, which at least in my experience, is not what they say, as written or otherwise.

Though for all I know there's a spell out there that is only found on arcanists' lists and has an entry of DF. Depending on the spell in question, I may not even agree that it's obvious that such a thing is a typo. If nothing else, I think it would be interesting to have a spell that requires an arcanist to use a divine focus, particularly if said divine focus was actually an arcane material component.

[willpell]

{{scrubbed}}

[IncoherentEssay]

On the "Components: S, V, DF" for spells on both arcane and divine lists, i've always interpreted that as the arcane version requiring Somatic & Vocal only, and the divine additionally requiring the Divine Focus. They are just listed as one for space-saving reasons.

Not sure how well it stands up from a pure RAW point-of-view, but from Components - Divine Focus:

If the Components line includes F/DF or M/DF, the arcane version of the spell has a focus component or a material component (the abbreviation before the slash) and the divine version has a divine focus component (the abbreviation after the slash).
Bolding added for emphasis of interpretation. So a (S, V, DF) wouldn't have an arcane focus/material component, as a focus/component is only called for if M, F, F/DF or M/DF is used.
So IMO not a copy/paste error, merely poorly presented.

[Yuki Akuma]

If a spell only lists a divine focus, and not an arcane material component or an arcane focus, then an arcane caster can cast it without needing a material component or an arcane focus.

This isn't a complicated idea. :smallwink:

Also: "Intellectually lazy" and "inadequately incisive" are still insults, FYI. They are in fact just a way to call people stupid while also proving that you're totally smart because you can use long words.

Not agreeing with you does not make people intellectually inferior to you. Especially when you provide no defense for your claims and they're expected to simply agree with you because it's your interpretation, which must be correct for the simple fact that it's yours.

[Jasdoif]

Okay, so a wight[A] spawns Wight[B1] and [B2], and Wight [B2] spawns Wight [C] who spawns Wight[D]. Wight[D] is at the bottom of the totem pole in the spawn Hierarchy. If he were to gain class levels, and chooses Evil Cleric (or for lesser effect, wizard) and uses Command Undead on Wight [B2]. Does he take over in B2's place on the totem pole? Does he unleash the entire chain except his newly acquired minion? Or do each of the Wights have the ability to stay in control of 'someone' no matter if any of them die?

Just a little bit of clarification on the Undead turning rules in regards to spawn and 'inherit' command.Wight D's control over Wight B2 doesn't override the hierarchy in any way; both effects work concurrently. Wight D could order Wight B2 to exercise control over Wight C, yes; but Wight C still has control over Wight D. So, Wight B2 could order Wight C to order Wight D to not issue any orders to Wight B2. Or Wight C could order Wight D to issue orders to Wight B2.

For sanity's sake, it's easiest to assume Wight B2 would instantly prevent Wight D from exercising control over it, in some fashion.




Therefore, the world modeled by the RAW has a sort of reality, in a conceptual sense, and the RAW is an attempt to translate that reality into words, but it is written by flawed and fallible persons who don't always get it right. When there is an apparent lapse in the setting's internal logic, individuals must look deeper to figure out what the RAW should have said, and would have said if its writers had been absolutely perfect in their ability to represent the intended reality of the setting. Failing to do that, and just assuming that RAW alone is good enough, is what I regard as "inadequately incisive".The RAW is a set of rules and guidelines forming the framework of a game system. Nothing more. Reality modeling is an extrapolation of the rules, RAW or otherwise, done by the players and DM.

RAW is generally adhered to in discussions around here, because exceptions are the purview of the DM of the individual game, who may or not take issue with the particular case of internal consistency, and who may or may not have the same method of resolution even if they do take issue with it. The RAW happens to be the most likely candidate for an arbitrary scenario, which in turn makes it the most useful basis for discussion in general. If nothing else, knowing what RAW says can serve as a basis for requesting a change from the DM.

To claim there's only one true way to resolve a given situation, is to insult the creativity and authority of DMs everywhere.

[willpell]

If a spell only lists a divine focus, and not an arcane material component or an arcane focus, then an arcane caster can cast it without needing a material component or an arcane focus.
This isn't a complicated idea. :smallwink:

Huh. That interpretation never occurred to me. I'm not sure if it's correct (it does not follow inevitably from the rule IncoherentEssay quoted), but it's certainly more convenient than dreaming up a unique arcane component for each such spell (although I did come up with a focus for Resist Elements I'm rather proud of). It would suffice as a spot-ruling at the very least. Thanks, both of you!


Also: "Intellectually lazy" and "inadequately incisive" are still insults, FYI. They are in fact just a way to call people stupid while also proving that you're totally smart because you can use long words.

Not agreeing with you does not make people intellectually inferior to you. Especially when you provide no defense for your claims and they're expected to simply agree with you because it's your interpretation, which must be correct for the simple fact that it's yours.

My observation is not always correct just because it's mine; rather, it is usually correct because I hold myself to extremely high standards for analysis. Others are willing to believe either the 'truth' that they are told or the facts as they appear; I insist upon peering through both, seeing where they reveal each other's faults, so that the actual reality behind both my vision and others' assumptions can be divined. That which I do not personally know to be true, but which others claim to be so in contradiction of my own experience, I reject as being the self-serving dogma of those who would control others. But I also recognize that my own perception is imperfect, and am always scrutinizing and re-evaluating my own preconceptions, to see whether they continue to hold true in light of new information. The result is a far closer approximation of actuality than either my sight or anyone else's claims, individually, can manage. (Everyone does this to some degree, but I uphold it as necessary even to the point of unreason, for better to question whether reality is right, than to accept it if, in fact, it is not.)

Intelligence is ultimately the trait which has allowed humanity to transcend the boundaries Nature placed upon us, so that we need not suffer and die by the millions every time our environment takes a turn for the worst. I make no apologies for championing intellectual accomplishment as the single most meaningful virtue a human being can possess, and those who intentionally lack it as being akin to D&D characters who choose Evil despite objective Good being provably extant. There is simply no excuse, and there is nothing wrong with opposing such individuals tooth and nail (which does not include violence, of course, as we are civilized beings; using social pressure to influence them to improve, on the other hand, is not only acceptible but mandatory if the world is to continue growing better, and not backslide into the mindless barbarism of some postmodern Dark Age).


To claim there's only one true way to resolve a given situation, is to insult the creativity and authority of DMs everywhere.

If a situation calls for such creativity, then it is not part of the same original model. In cases where an alternate interpretation is explicitly not called for, there IS one true way; the DM's prerogative is to decide whether to change the definition of truth, not to change what the actual truth is within the existing definition.

[Voyager_I]

My observation is not always correct just because it's mine; rather, it is usually correct because I hold myself to extremely high standards for analysis.

Read what you just wrote. Can you truthfully tell me it wouldn't come across as an enormous red flag if the words were attached to any name other than your own?

Go over the rest of it as well, and try to imagine what you sound like to those of us who live outside of your head.

[Answerer]

No I didn't think you were seriously suggesting that; it was a slightly humorous extrapolation of your contention that RAW is an immutable constant regardless of how it is interpreted, even when it is impossible to play it at all without such interpretation.
No, it isn't. It's got nothing to do with anything I said, and I'm not going to even read the rest of your post until you can demonstrate that you are actually writing about things I have actually said, rather than what you'd like me to have said so that you can more easily mock it.

[willpell]

You said, and I quote:


OK, well, yes, if you want to look at the rules as a whole and ask if, as a whole, a single definitive interpretation is required by them, then the answer is clearly no.

Ergo, you assert that there is no single right answer; contradictions exist in the RAW, therefore it is not itself unarguably right, and thus nothing is unarguably right, everything instead being interpretation. The rest was humorous hyperbolization upon that concept - that since there are multiple interpretations, a game can only operate by RAW by disallowing any of them and thus making action impossible.

I thought that was clear from my original joke.

[Answerer]

Your line of reasoning, even for the sake of a joke, is invalid. Specifically, it's all non sequitur.

I suppose I'll see if the attempt at a joke hid an actual response though.

[willpell]

{{scrubbed}}

[Ravens_cry]

Guys and/or gals, cool your jets.
It's just the Internet; it's not the rage virus.

[Answerer]

I disagree. Any debate which disregards the evidence at hand is pointless sophistry. If I say "look at that tree" and you say "that's not a tree, that's a shrub", the correct way to resolve the disagreement is not to stand around arguing about what the words "tree" and "shrub" mean, it's to actually LOOK at the plant in question and decide which word better fits the actual fact of the plant's existence.
Who said anything about ignoring evidence? I very certainly did not.

I said that the word "obvious" has no place in rational discourse.

I also said that you have to back up your claims with both evidence and reasoning; by saying "it's 'RAI'!" you're doing neither. And even if you were to say, "It's obviously a shrub, look at it!" that would not be a valid argument either – for a proper rational discourse, you have to give reasons for things. "It's a shrub because it's smallish and its leaves reach the the ground, rather than having an exposed trunk like a tree usually would" might be an argument (though of course some trees have branches going all the way down; I'm not familiar with the technical definitions of 'tree' and 'shrub' but in such cases then yes going back to the definition would be a useful way of settling the debate).

But just claiming that it's "obvious" is not an argument, it's an unjustified assertion and implied pre-emptive insult against those who disagree with you.


You have repeatedly complained about me saying that all interpretations are equally valid, or that everyone is equally right, or smart, or whatever. I have said none of these things. I have said that everyone, no matter how smart or not they are, needs to justify their arguments with both evidence and reason if they want to be taken seriously. The judgment that you apparently pride yourself on is impossible if someone merely asserts a claim without any evidence or reasoning, because you're left guessing why that person believes that to be the case.


Also, Ravens_cry, I would not consider myself particularly heated in this case, but then when I am heated I frequently have trouble recognizing it. Would you mind PMing me what, if anything, you worry is too hot?

[willpell]

Raven'sCry probably mostly meant me about the heatedness, and I'll cop to it. As I said, being the perennial Cassandra to an apparent Idiocracy grates on my nerves after a while, and I am perhaps too quick to leap on apparent evidence that "oh dear god it's happening again". Call it intellectual battle fatigue or something, I guess.

[Yuki Akuma]

I find it amusing that you're still insisting you're obviously correct (the Cassandra reference is nice, too - implying that by ignoring you we're heading towards disaster).

Classy.

[Seatbelt]

I still think the OP has a point: maybe there are nuances in usage, but it's still very much the same basic weapon. I would expect someone who is adept with one to be able to passably use the other.


You would be wrong. I point you to the historic cases of the Turkish nomad/mongol horde's steppe cavalry generaly rocking Frankish tuckus, and the British Longbowman.

They both might be able to shoot a bow, but a longbowman won't be able to shoot a shortbow from horseback and a steppe cavalry rider probably doesn't have the upper body strength to draw the bow. Both of these examples of skill are "trained from birth" kinds of things.


As far as a game goes, it probably doesn't need to be two feats.

[Seatbelt]

How about we modify the discussion a little bit because frankly I'm more interested in what kinds of things people ad hoc than who is or isn't correct in a RAW/RAI argument.

As a DM, what kinds of things have made you stop suddenly, exclaim "well that's stupid", and then change the rule?

For me it's usually Alertness as a feat. For example "Why does this Blaspheme have Alertness? That's dumb. Now it has power attack" or some such.

[danzibr]

Appraise: kilt with magnifying glasses, calipers, etc. hanging from it
Balance: evenly weighted kilt
Climb: hooked kilt. -2 "gaaaw" penalty to climb checks of those below you.
Concentration: Loose kilt that lets you "breathe"
Diplomacy: works on scottish NPCs
Disguise: Everyone thinks you're a foreigner.
Hide: Cross your legs in a way that makes everyone look away
... These are exaggerations of what I mean by eyebrow raising MW tool descriptions btw
The climb and hide are hilarious. Rest are good.
Perform (singing): tight kilt to hit those high notes.

Perhaps it should be RAOC - Rules As Obviously Correct. There are many cases where RAW just cannot possibly be right (such as saying you need a divine focus to cast certain arcane spells, for instance). When the rulebook and common sense disagree, RAW says the rulebook wins, but RAOC knows better. (Granted, common sense can be a little hard to arbitrate when A Wizard Did It, but still, logic and reason apply to a fair extent in most cases. When five spells all say Animal's Attribute and call for a piece of the animal, and a sixth says Animal's Attribute and calls for a divine focus, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is clearly a misprint.)
Or we can do RAALNPORPWAAC, Rules As At Least Ninety Percent Of Reasonable People Would Agree Are Correct. That way you can throw out the outliers. So look at rule, poll an adequately large sample space, if 90%+ people agree, then we rule that as how the rule ought to be.

[Rejusu]

No one here can answer any question "by Rules As Intended." It's impossible to know what the authors meant to write unless, of course, we assume that they meant to write what they actually wrote. Barring those very, very few cases where the authors have written clarifications outside of the books/errata (a very few FAQ entries are written by the actual authors, for example).

I'd disagree. This implies that intention cannot be inferred from what they actually wrote. It's by no means impossible to know what was meant to be written as long as we can back that up with evidence. For example I could type the sentence:

For isntcane you can raed tihs stennece prefctely wlel dpstiee all the letetrs bieng jmubeld.

What I actually wrote was nonsense, but what I intended to write is perfectly clear. The Swordsage has x6 skill points as first level in what's actually written yet given the context (every class in D&D having x4) it's almost certainly intended to be 4. Go read the Abjurant champion class and tell me it wasn't intended for it's Abjurant armour ability to be usable with mage armour despite it not being an abjuration spell.

Now of course there's no way to ever know with 100% certainty what an authors intentions were, but to say you can't make a reasonably accurate guess is silly. The problem is that RAI is often brought up in places where it's not easy to divine the authors intentions.

{{scrubbed}}

[Answerer]

I'd disagree. This implies that intention cannot be inferred from what they actually wrote. It's by no means impossible to know what was meant to be written as long as we can back that up with evidence. For example I could type the sentence:

For isntcane you can raed tihs stennece prefctely wlel dpstiee all the letetrs bieng jmubeld.

What I actually wrote was nonsense, but what I intended to write is perfectly clear. The Swordsage has x6 skill points as first level in what's actually written yet given the context (every class in D&D having x4) it's almost certainly intended to be 4. Go read the Abjurant champion class and tell me it wasn't intended for it's Abjurant armour ability to be usable with mage armour despite it not being an abjuration spell.

Now of course there's no way to ever know with 100% certainty what an authors intentions were, but to say you can't make a reasonably accurate guess is silly. The problem is that RAI is often brought up in places where it's not easy to divine the authors intentions.
In some cases, yes, one can make the argument that RAI is not what was actually written.

My contention was that one must actually make an argument, though. You can't just assert "it's RAI" and expect to have your position taken seriously.

My secondary point to this was that spending time arguing about whether or not a given thing was intended one way or another is largely a waste of time. At least, personally, I don't care what the author meant to say, I only care what rule, whether it be as written, as intended, or explicitly a houserule, whatever, is going to result in the best play experience at my table.

Arguing about RAW is more fruitful in the realm of theoretical exercises, and for the sake of making sure everyone is on the same page, but again, ultimately, when it comes down to the rules that see play, RAW is not nearly so important as RAWBFYG (Rules As Works Best For Your Group).

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm going to take a new approach to this and posit that the RAW can vary from group to group, because not everyone owns all the books (or certain books are being deliberately excluded from use). Therefore, any rules normally found in the absent books are not part of the group's version of the RAW.

[Lucy Land]

For a RAI/RAMS answer I'd be careful about masterwork tools that make no sense at all. Even if you say "Woooo, the cloak is dark", why in the 9 hells would a cloak cost so much just because it's black?
It's not black, it changes color. Thank you, Robert Jordan!


As a DM, what kinds of things have made you stop suddenly, exclaim "well that's stupid", and then change the rule?
Somewhat akin to Willpell's bow complaint, I want to know why crafting wands requires a different feat than crafting staffs. Seriously, one item type is just bigger and better than the other...but apparently none of the skills to craft one applies to the other.

Also, slippery mind is a rogue thing just because...slippery is in the title? That's the thinnest logic I've ever heard.

[Answerer]

I'm going to take a new approach to this and posit that the RAW can vary from group to group, because not everyone owns all the books (or certain books are being deliberately excluded from use). Therefore, any rules normally found in the absent books are not part of the group's version of the RAW.
Ooh, good call; yes, that is true. I'll buy that.

[willpell]

It's not black, it changes colorSomewhat akin to Willpell's bow complaint, I want to know why crafting wands requires a different feat than crafting staffs. Seriously, one item type is just bigger and better than the other...but apparently none of the skills to craft one applies to the other.

I'm inclined to agree. It makes sense that Craft Staff is a separate feat, given that staves do something wands don't - use the caster's own caster level rather than the maker's. However it's rather absurd to have Craft Staff and not be able to make wands because you didn't take that feat separately. I'd make it a prerequisite.


Take this for an example, you have two children. One is colour blind, one is not. I have a single "red" ball. I identify it as red because that's what I've been told it is. If I tell both children it's red then that's what they'll know that colour as, even if they both see it differently.
If I then turned colour blind myself and "actually LOOKED at the ball in question and decide which word better fits the actual fact of the ball's existence" I would deem it to be brown.
This is where your argument falls apart. Although we all observe the same reality (although they may see the colour differently the two children still see that there is a ball in my hand) we don't necessarily perceive it in the same way. This is not just true of the physical universe but of ideas as well.

But the ball would be red (not the word "red", but the physical color which English represents with that word) regardless of whether anyone is looking at it, or whether they can see its redness. If the ball wasn't red, it couldn't reflect red light which stimulates the cones of a color-sighted person to register the presence of the color red. Whether people can see the color or not, it's factually present. I wish reality were nothing but the sum total of perceptions, but if that were true, people wouldn't die of diseases they had no idea they had, or suffocate due to the absence of air, which they never perceived while it was present unless it was moving or unusually scented or something. An objective reality exists, and it can make us suffer. Until we can do away with it, we must perceive it accurately, to minimize the extent to which we are at its mercy.

Consider this example: You have a red ball in your hands, but everyone who looks at it absolutely insists it isn't there, even if they touch it they deny that they're touching anything, and after thousands of random witnesses all react the same way you can rule out that it's a practical joke they're all in on. You can see the ball and feel it in your hands, but all others are blind to its existence with all of their senses. At that point, you have two possibilities to consider - you are hallucinating the ball in all of your senses, or the ball is concealed from the senses of all others but you are able to pierce that veil somehow. But if you could hallucinate the ball, you could just as easily hallucinate people who say they don't see the ball, so it is more reasonable to assume that the ball is somehow concealed from their sight (or designed to appear solely to yourself, but that implies an active deception targeted solely at you by someone specifically interested in fooling you, and I find that less probable than a deception meant to fool everybody which you have somehow thwarted through superior perception).

Consider this scenario instead: rather than the ball, the object only you can see is a key, and it unlocks a vast cage in which everyone else has lived their entire life, believing they are free. Better yet, rather than a key, it is a color-code, invisible to the blind people around you, who assume the world simply stops at their walls even though a series of colored symbols are painted on those walls; you and you alone can see the answer key and press the symbols in the correct order to release yourself and all others from the cage. That is the way I have always felt. Others do not see what I see, but I do not believe that proves me insane or my perceptions hallucinatory. I believe I am a step up the evolutionary ladder from my contemporaries, plugged into a wavelength undreamt of in Horatio's philosophy, and perpetually frustrated by the unwillingness of others to believe me when I say that "sight" exists despite their not possessing it.


I find it amusing that you're still insisting you're obviously correct (the Cassandra reference is nice, too - implying that by ignoring you we're heading towards disaster).

Well duh. Have you not seen the news lately? Disasters happen every week or two, and most of them easily preventable through intelligent, ethical behavior. If I were running BP, there would never have been a Deepwater Horizon, because I would never have permitted what's-his-face to cut corners on safety for the sake of balancing a budget. I would have recognized that no amount of money is worth the risk of environmental devastation on an epic scale. Any intelligent person would, but capitalism does not encourage farsighted vision, it encourages not thinking about anything past the next fiscal quarter.

Time and again in our society, people make stupid, short-sighted decisions because they simply aren't bright enough to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions; they can't see past the emotional fog of the moment, or they cling to absolutist dogma for no rational reason because they can't stand to be objective. I lack such frailties, and therefore I should be permitted to make their decisions for them, so that they may benefit from my wisdom. Unfortunately the last government I recall which worked on such principles was the court of King Solomon, and a long succession of tyrants have convinced modern people that nobody can be trusted with absolute monarchy, because they no longer believe benevolence is possible. Again, a failure of vision on their part, and very sad.

[Hunter Killer]

On-Topic
I always found the critical stacking rules changes in 3.5 to be a little infuriating. Why is it that Keen (which represents an unnaturally sharp weapon) and Improved Critical (which represents improved skill with a weapon) do not stack in some way, shape, or form?

The rules for weapon sizing are also just a little dumb. I know why it was done (Streamlining the dice scaling rules for things like Enlarge and Reduce effects, as well as allowing Small and Large characters access to the same sets of weapons available to Medium characters), it's just that it creates a lot of redundancies and stupid situations (like a Medium Character not being able to wield a Huge Shortsword, or getting a -4 with a Huge Dagger).

{Scrubbed}

[razark]

{Scrubbed}

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

May I suggest a quick perusal of the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=25&a=1) followed by ample use of the edit button, particularly concerning flaming and political subjects? Anyway...

Only arguments by definition can be 100% certain, so if we need to know something 100%, we're going to fail. That can be whether a rule is RAI, whether the keyboard exists, whatever. That said, when something seems obvious, the reasoning should also be obvious.

For instance, drown healing probably wasn't intended by the authors. Sure, they said that your hit points go zero without specifying anything about your previous hit point total. That said, consider the following:
(1) Someone in the real world won't heal their wounds by drowning.
(2) They give no explanation as to why this would be different in the D&D world.
(3) I do not believe anyone in this thread actually believes a nonmagical human ought to heal wounds by filling his lungs with water.

In this instance, if I respond to the above arguments with "You can't divine the designer's intentions" I am cynically hiding behind a technicality unless I actually believe the designers intended for drowning to heal and have my own set of arguments for why that might be.

[Ashtagon]

On-Topic
I always found the critical stacking rules changes in 3.5 to be a little infuriating. Why is it that Keen (which represents an unnaturally sharp weapon) and Improved Critical (which represents improved skill with a weapon) do not stack in some way, shape, or form?

The rules for weapon sizing are also just a little dumb. I know why it was done (Streamlining the dice scaling rules for things like Enlarge and Reduce effects, as well as allowing Small and Large characters access to the same sets of weapons available to Medium characters), it's just that it creates a lot of redundancies and stupid situations (like a Medium Character not being able to wield a Huge Shortsword, or getting a -4 with a Huge Dagger).


The reason for the weapon size attack penalties isn't to do with the size o the business end, but the size of the grip or handle. If a Medium axe has a haft an inch in diameter, a Large axe has a haft two inches in diameter, and a Huge axe, four inches. As the haft becomes larger and larger, it becomes harder and harder to grip the weapon firmly enough to leverage your strength with the weapon.

[KillianHawkeye]

Time and again in our society, people make stupid, short-sighted decisions because they simply aren't bright enough to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions; they can't see past the emotional fog of the moment, or they cling to absolutist dogma for no rational reason because they can't stand to be objective. I lack such frailties, and therefore I should be permitted to make their decisions for them, so that they may benefit from my wisdom. Unfortunately the last government I recall which worked on such principles was the court of King Solomon, and a long succession of tyrants have convinced modern people that nobody can be trusted with absolute monarchy, because they no longer believe benevolence is possible. Again, a failure of vision on their part, and very sad.

Dude, you are honestly starting to scare me at this point. Even if you are as super-intelligent as you claim to be, you are seriously lacking in modesty and humility. If you care at all about earning people's respect, you may want to tone the arrogance down a notch.

[Rejusu]

But the ball would be red (not the word "red", but the physical color which English represents with that word) regardless of whether anyone is looking at it, or whether they can see its redness. If the ball wasn't red, it couldn't reflect red light which stimulates the cones of a color-sighted person to register the presence of the color red. Whether people can see the color or not, it's factually present. I wish reality were nothing but the sum total of perceptions, but if that were true, people wouldn't die of diseases they had no idea they had, or suffocate due to the absence of air, which they never perceived while it was present unless it was moving or unusually scented or something. An objective reality exists, and it can make us suffer. Until we can do away with it, we must perceive it accurately, to minimize the extent to which we are at its mercy.

You've basically taken the wrong point away from that example. The point was that there's no such thing as an accurate perception, only accurate communication. How we perceive things is irrelevant, only how we communicate our perceptions matters. Thus two children can look at a red ball, see the colour differently and yet still identify it as a red ball. It was also to illustrate how overconfidence in your perception of things can lead to you being wrong.


Consider this example: You have a red ball in your hands, but everyone who looks at it absolutely insists it isn't there, even if they touch it they deny that they're touching anything, and after thousands of random witnesses all react the same way you can rule out that it's a practical joke they're all in on. You can see the ball and feel it in your hands, but all others are blind to its existence with all of their senses. At that point, you have two possibilities to consider - you are hallucinating the ball in all of your senses, or the ball is concealed from the senses of all others but you are able to pierce that veil somehow. But if you could hallucinate the ball, you could just as easily hallucinate people who say they don't see the ball, so it is more reasonable to assume that the ball is somehow concealed from their sight (or designed to appear solely to yourself, but that implies an active deception targeted solely at you by someone specifically interested in fooling you, and I find that less probable than a deception meant to fool everybody which you have somehow thwarted through superior perception).

Yes it's more reasonable to assume that no one else can see the ball rather than it's your own hallucination.

Seriously? You start out talking about common sense and then you go on to place your own perception of reality above all others. I'll refer you to an earlier statement of yours:
"Right and wrong are never objective; that's the whole reason you need to talk things through and come up with a consensus."

And the consensus here is that unless you can provide evidence for your "superior perception" that allows you to see this ball then the ball doesn't exist.


Consider this scenario instead: rather than the ball, the object only you can see is a key, and it unlocks a vast cage in which everyone else has lived their entire life, believing they are free. Better yet, rather than a key, it is a color-code, invisible to the blind people around you, who assume the world simply stops at their walls even though a series of colored symbols are painted on those walls; you and you alone can see the answer key and press the symbols in the correct order to release yourself and all others from the cage. That is the way I have always felt. Others do not see what I see, but I do not believe that proves me insane or my perceptions hallucinatory. I believe I am a step up the evolutionary ladder from my contemporaries, plugged into a wavelength undreamt of in Horatio's philosophy, and perpetually frustrated by the unwillingness of others to believe me when I say that "sight" exists despite their not possessing it.

What's bizarre here is you don't even see how you're guilty of what you judge others for. Your own sense of self-importance clouds your judgement and closes off your mind. You're living in a cage all right. But you're the only inhabitant.


Time and again in our society, people make stupid, short-sighted decisions because they simply aren't bright enough to comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions; they can't see past the emotional fog of the moment, or they cling to absolutist dogma for no rational reason because they can't stand to be objective. I lack such frailties, and therefore I should be permitted to make their decisions for them, so that they may benefit from my wisdom. Unfortunately the last government I recall which worked on such principles was the court of King Solomon, and a long succession of tyrants have convinced modern people that nobody can be trusted with absolute monarchy, because they no longer believe benevolence is possible. Again, a failure of vision on their part, and very sad.

Arrogance isn't wisdom, it's foolishness. You believe yourself to be above judgement and thus you're incapable of being objective.


{Scrubbed}

I couldn't have put it any more succinctly myself.

[Answerer]

In this instance, if I respond to the above arguments with "You can't divine the designer's intentions" I am cynically hiding behind a technicality unless I actually believe the designers intended for drowning to heal and have my own set of arguments for why that might be.
I agree – for the reasons you gave. If you don't give reasons, and just assert that it's intended, then you aren't making an argument and are implying things that you (I hope) don't intend.

What is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone else. Perhaps an Aiel would not know that water doesn't have these magical properties, in the real world? (the Aiel are a desert people in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series; as a people they literally had never seen open pools of water, and may not have any idea how drowning works)

And mostly, the point is, the issues in which people use "RAI" are rarely so straightforward. For instance, the OP's question, and more importantly, the thread's title. The title mirrors the "by RAW" Q&A threads, but no one can answer questions "by RAI" with any degree of certainty on most issues the way you can with RAW.

I did not state, or mean, 100% certainty. The certainty of assertions of "RAI" are, in most cases, very much lower, to the point where I had this whole debate over why it's not an appropriate term to use in a rational debate unless you back it up.

The other point is that convincing me that something is RAI doesn't really matter much, since I'm not inclined to chnage my own feelings on what plays best just because I learn that the designers had something else in mind. I disagree with a lot of things they wrote.

[willpell]

Dude, you are honestly starting to scare me at this point. Even if you are as super-intelligent as you claim to be, you are seriously lacking in modesty and humility. If you care at all about earning people's respect, you may want to tone the arrogance down a notch.

Why is humility considered a good thing? That's a serious question; I see everyone who asks others for humility failing to demonstrate it themselves, using it as an excuse to bully others into servitude. It's really sickening to me that we teach people not to value themselves, not to think they should be proud of their accomplishments. We need a society that moves forward and upward, not one that stifles progress for the sake of sparing the fragile feelings of people who choose to be useless and counterproductive. I want to see people stand up for their own virtues, not bludgeon other people with accusations of vice, and as far as I can tell, humility is about pretending not to have succumbed to the "sin" of having a positive opinion of yourself.

[Boci]

Why is humility considered a good thing?

On the internet it comes off better than someone repeatedly saying "I am a genius, just accept that. If people disagree with me they are wrong".

[Rejusu]

Why is humility considered a good thing? That's a serious question; I see everyone who asks others for humility failing to demonstrate it themselves, using it as an excuse to bully others into servitude. It's really sickening to me that we teach people not to value themselves, not to think they should be proud of their accomplishments. We need a society that moves forward and upward, not one that stifles progress for the sake of sparing the fragile feelings of people who choose to be useless and counterproductive. I want to see people stand up for their own virtues, not bludgeon other people with accusations of vice, and as far as I can tell, humility is about pretending not to have succumbed to the "sin" of having a positive opinion of yourself.

Humility isn't about not valuing yourself. It's about not overvaluing yourself. What you are doing is confusing confidence (a virtue) with arrogance (a vice). Confidence is believing you're right because you've considered all the angles and laid out a well reasoned argument to support your belief. Arrogance is simply believing that you're right. It's a line you seem to have not only crossed but left in the distance some miles away.

Humility is about knowing your limitations. You talk about moving forward and upward but how can you move forward at all when you believe yourself to be at the pinnacle? It's amazing how you can talk about progression and at the same time act as if you're the peak of humanity? You're not progressing, you're standing still because you mistakenly believe you have no where to go.

Humility is having the strength of character to know that you're not perfect. To be able to criticize yourself. And the only way you can get closer to perfection is by being able to acknowledge your weaknesses. You know who are the real "useless and counterproductive" people? Those who have too positive an opinion of themselves. You don't seem to understand that to improve yourself you have to first acknowledge there are improvements to be made.

The best artists I know believe themselves to be rubbish, the worst believe themselves to be great. The best ones are so good because they're capable of producing work that I would think amazing and then hating it. Because they find every little flaw they try their hardest to improve on it the next time. The worst however believe what they're doing is already good and so they never strive to improve it. They stagnate in their own mediocrity.

Sure the best artists I know are never really happy with what they do, but their work is amazing because of it.

Humility is a good thing because it can make you a better person. I'm surprised that with your infinite wisdom you never realised that.

[Knight13]

Here's another example: mace and morning star. This is the exact same freakin' weapon.
No they're not. With a mace the head is firmly attached to the end of the handle, with the morningstar it's connected to the handle by a length of chain, so it swings around freely. This drastically changes the way the weapon handles. If you've only ever used maces before and you pick up a morningstar and try to wield it, you're more likely to smash yourself in the back of the head with the ball than you are to hit your opponent with it.

[razark]

With a mace the head is firmly attached to the end of the handle, with the morningstar it's connected to the handle by a length of chain, so it swings around freely
The morning star is a mace with a spiked head firmly attached to the shaft. A flail is a weighted, possibly spiked, head attached to the handle by a chain or rope.

[Yuki Akuma]

No they're not. With a mace the head is firmly attached to the end of the handle, with the morningstar it's connected to the handle by a length of chain, so it swings around freely.

You're thinking of flails.

Historically, there are two weapons that often get called maces - blunt weighted clubs, and spiked weighted clubs. D&D decided to call the first "mace", and the second by its alternative name - "morning star".

[willpell]

No they're not. With a mace the head is firmly attached to the end of the handle, with the morningstar it's connected to the handle by a length of chain, so it swings around freely. This drastically changes the way the weapon handles. If you've only ever used maces before and you pick up a morningstar and try to wield it, you're more likely to smash yourself in the back of the head with the ball than you are to hit your opponent with it.

I've also seen sources that say the morningstar is a polearm-length spiked mace, and that a mace is by definition spiked, but a flail by default is not spiked unless it is a "spiked flail", also called a "morningstar". The issue would appear to be a trifle confused. However D&D appears to contain no acknowledgment of the existence of non-spiked flails, unless you count the nunchaku, despite the fact that the flail was originally an agricultural implement and didn't get spikes until after its non-spiked version had been employed in war to sufficient effect to justify upgrading.

*******************


Confidence is believing you're right because you've considered all the angles and laid out a well reasoned argument to support your belief.

This is always what I have been doing here, except that I didn't lay out the argument because I'm bad at organizing a thought into components; to me it's an integrated whole. My mind is a melting pot; I can no more separate one idea from every other idea I've ever connected it to than I can pull grains of salt out of a bowl of soup. (Pulling water out of a bowl of soup to leave grains of salt is possible, but I digress.) But I do in fact always consider all the angles; that's part of why I come across as babbling incoherently, because I am on every side of every issue at all times, weighing different interpretations and sometimes not even knowing what side I'm favoring until three fourths of the way into an argument. If I come across as a bit trollish at times, it's because I enjoy the process of intellectual discovery that occurs during spirited debate, and I would no more try to turn it into structured rhetoric than I would demand a romantic partner help me count push-ups during sex.


Humility is about knowing your limitations.

You say "knowing"; I hear "tolerating". I believe we must never accept that we are only human, for to do so is to say that there's nothing wrong with being no better than we are. I don't just want us to climb the evolutionary ladder, I want us to install a rocket-propelled chair lift and achieve FTL travel to the Andromeda galaxy. And I am absolutely certain that we can, if we stop shrugging and saying that we can't. I say, why face reality when it is so clearly not worth living in as-is?


You're not progressing, you're standing still because you mistakenly believe you have no where to go.

That is far from true. I want to go everywhere; if anything I am having trouble picking only one direction. Also, I don't know if anything I could try would actually work and so I have a hard time convincing myself to bother. Without a guarantee that it will work, I don't want to expend the effort to try. As soon as I'm certain that I can accomplish anything, I plan to, but I can't stand the thought of failing and being worse off than before I started. Measure twice, cut once and all that.


Humility is having the strength of character to know that you're not perfect.

Everybody's not perfect. That doesn't take strength of character at all. What takes strength of character is saying, "I will be perfect, no matter what it takes." (With the caveat "...eventually.")


You don't seem to understand that to improve yourself you have to first acknowledge there are improvements to be made.

It is not that I do not know they could be made; it is that I do not know that they can. I do not see a way how, or I see ways that are unacceptible. I could lose weight, for example, but not without giving up the succulent foods in sufficient quantities that I depend upon to get enough hedonistic satisfaction to tolerate the indignities and horrors of my life, or exerting myself to an agonizing degree with the mind-numbing tedium of repetitive exercise, or gambling money on some miracle diet pill that almost certainly won't work, or just taking a knife and hacking off chunks of my flesh, or paying some hack doctor $20K dollars to liposuction me. None of our available methods of problem-solving are worth anything to me; if they were, I'd solve the problem. Instead, lacking anything better to do, I wait for science to invent a better way; it's the most effective method I see available, and it has worked in quite a few cases; I have solutions today that I could never have imagined five years ago, and I see no reason not to keep putzing around for another five years to see what else comes along to make things finally start working for me.


The best artists I know believe themselves to be rubbish, the worst believe themselves to be great. The best ones are so good because they're capable of producing work that I would think amazing and then hating it. Because they find every little flaw they try their hardest to improve on it the next time.

I do this all the time, reflexively. It sucks; I hate every second of it. I would rather be happy than successful - but ultimately, I can't be happy unless I am successful. My life is filled with such paradoxes, hence my tendency to perceive the entire world as a torture device engineered to accomplish my destruction. Obviously this is the crazy talking, but it's also rooted in truth, minus the solipsistic angle. From a Darwinian perspective, I was meant to fail and die so that some "fitter" lifeform could prosper at my expense. I do not accept this. It is wrong, no universe should be permitted to function in such a hideous and villainous manner, and so I behave as if it were simply untrue, because it doesn't deserve to be acknowledged as truth.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree – for the reasons you gave. If you don't give reasons, and just assert that it's intended, then you aren't making an argument and are implying things that you (I hope) don't intend.If I had just said "Look at drown healing. I really don't think that's RAI," without any actual support, the position is no less wrong right... ugh, my brain. Anyway, if you had asked me to defend my point, sure, I would have provided some arguments, but I definitely would have been looking at you funny... through the internet.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone else. Perhaps an Aiel would not know that water doesn't have these magical properties, in the real world? (the Aiel are a desert people in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series; as a people they literally had never seen open pools of water, and may not have any idea how drowning works)Well, unless the Aiel are writing roleplaying sourcebooks I think we're okay here.
And mostly, the point is, the issues in which people use "RAI" are rarely so straightforward. For instance, the OP's question, and more importantly, the thread's title. The title mirrors the "by RAW" Q&A threads, but no one can answer questions "by RAI" with any degree of certainty on most issues the way you can with RAW.I agree that RAI is overused. If any mechanic is unbalanced or produces a strange result in combination with some other mechanic you'll always get, "Clearly that result wasn't intended." And yes, they should back it up. But sometimes, in the most obvious cases (such as drown healing, but you're right, not the OP's question), I can definitely forgive people for failing to provide evidence until someone actually asks them for it.
I did not state, or mean, 100% certainty. The certainty of assertions of "RAI" are, in most cases, very much lower, to the point where I had this whole debate over why it's not an appropriate term to use in a rational debate unless you back it up.I think even if something is "probably" RAI gives you something. It's more a question of whether RAI is relevant, which leads to...
The other point is that convincing me that something is RAI doesn't really matter much, since I'm not inclined to chnage my own feelings on what plays best just because I learn that the designers had something else in mind. I disagree with a lot of things they wrote.Yknow, you're probably right. RAI is mostly a mask for "Rules as I intend them to work" or "Rules for fun at my table." Though pondering what exactly the designers were thinking when they wrote some of the silly stuff can be a fun intellectual exercise...

[Ashtagon]

I've also seen sources that say ...

[citation needed]

Personally, I've played it as:

Flail: A ball or metal bar attached to a handle by either a hinge, short chain, or short rope.

Here's what the 2e AEG bok has to say on flails:


The flail is a sturdy wooden handle attached to an iron rod, a wooden rod with spikes, or an iron ball. Between the handle and its implement is either a hinge or chain link. The weapon was originally used as a tool for threshing grain. Whether a flail is used by a foot soldier or a horseman, the principle is the same.

The followers of Peter the Hermit who fought in the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries used flails, placing spikes on the short flail heads. This adaptation gave rise to other modifications, such as replacing the second bar with two or more iron balls attached by chains.

Footman's flails were mostly used in the 13th and 14th centuries by foot soldiers, especially peasant troops, while the horseman's version enjoyed use by cavalry troops during the same time period.

Flails were used as late as the 1920s by Polish peasants against Soviet troops.

To be sure, the game interpretation is strictly a bludgeoning weapon. This is encoded in rules in 2e, and I believe it was an allowable cleric weapon in 1e. Of the four illustrations in the 2e AEG, three have spikes. I can only assume that these are not long/pointy enough to count as piercing damage for game rule purposes.

Mace: A solid haft made of wood or steel, with a weighted head that may be studded, flanged, or otherwise shaped to reduce the impact area compared to what a basic club would achieve. Regardless of flanged or other adornments, it remains a bludgeoning weapon.

Morning Star: A solid haft made of wood or steel, with a weighted head that has moderately long spikes. It is both a bludgeoning and a piercing weapon (in both 2e and 3e rules).

[Boci]

You say "knowing"; I hear "tolerating". I believe we must never accept that we are only human, for to do so is to say that there's nothing wrong with being no better than we are.

There is nothing wrong with being no better than who you are. Some people want to have a family and be loved and enjoy time with them and their friends without working to "improve" themselves, and their is nothing wrong with that.


Everybody's not perfect. That doesn't take strength of character at all. What takes strength of character is saying, "I will be perfect, no matter what it takes." (With the caveat "...eventually.")

No, that's just words. What may take strength of character is to get a fixed definition of what you consider perfect and then work day and night towards achieving it. And even then the motivation will determine whether that is strength or escapism.

[razark]

I don't just want us to climb the evolutionary ladder, I want us to install a rocket-propelled chair lift and achieve FTL travel to the Andromeda galaxy.
...
What takes strength of character is saying, "I will be perfect, no matter what it takes."
...
I can't be happy unless I am successful.

vs.


Without a guarantee that it will work, I don't want to expend the effort to try.
...
Instead, lacking anything better to do, I wait for science to invent a better way
...
I see no reason not to keep putzing around for another five years to see what else comes along

"Success and improvement are what's important, unless it directly involves my effort"?

Guess how science gets things done. It experiments. It tries to do stuff. If what it tries fails, it tries something else. You can think about things all you want, but if you don't do anything with the ideas you create, there's really no difference from not having the ideas in the first place. If you're going to sit around and wait for things to change for the better, you're not doing your part to try to make things better, for yourself or the society you so clearly despise. All you're doing is sitting in your "I'm better than y'all" chair, complaining about how much things suck, and not using your obviously vast intellectual abilities to help the world, even though, as you said, we would all be so much better off under your benevolent dictatorship.

[White_Drake]

Calling it "common sense" is rather insulting, considering it implies that anyone who disagrees with you isn't being sensible.

Everyone thinks differently. Everyone's definition of 'common sense' is different. There is no single objective way for humans to judge ideas. Everyone has their own unique biases and values.

Except my point of veiw. I'm *always* right. Even when I'm wrong I'm right. That comes with having been a DM.

[Rejusu]

This is always what I have been doing here, except that I didn't lay out the argument because I'm bad at organizing a thought into components; to me it's an integrated whole.

So this is what you've always been doing except you haven't done it? That's an incredibly contradictory statement right there. And no, all you've been doing from the start is stating that you're right for the simple virtue that you're (or at least you believe yourself to be) better than everyone else.


My mind is a melting pot; I can no more separate one idea from every other idea I've ever connected it to than I can pull grains of salt out of a bowl of soup. (Pulling water out of a bowl of soup to leave grains of salt is possible, but I digress.) But I do in fact always consider all the angles; that's part of why I come across as babbling incoherently, because I am on every side of every issue at all times, weighing different interpretations and sometimes not even knowing what side I'm favoring until three fourths of the way into an argument. If I come across as a bit trollish at times, it's because I enjoy the process of intellectual discovery that occurs during spirited debate, and I would no more try to turn it into structured rhetoric than I would demand a romantic partner help me count push-ups during sex.

If this is how you believe yourself to come across to others you probably need to re-examine that. You do not come across as someone who's open to debate, discovery or considering other viewpoints. You come across as someone who's already arrived at their conclusion, refuses to budge from it and doesn't believe there's anything left to discover. That the only thing left to do is dismiss others.


You say "knowing"; I hear "tolerating". I believe we must never accept that we are only human, for to do so is to say that there's nothing wrong with being no better than we are. I don't just want us to climb the evolutionary ladder, I want us to install a rocket-propelled chair lift and achieve FTL travel to the Andromeda galaxy. And I am absolutely certain that we can, if we stop shrugging and saying that we can't. I say, why face reality when it is so clearly not worth living in as-is?

You need to get your eyes checked then, because it's pretty clear what's written there is the word "knowing". And yes part of progressing as a human being is also accept and tolerate that we do have limitations. To pretend you don't is just delusional. You are not perfect, you will never be perfect. But most importantly to strive for complete perfection is to move further and further away from it.

As an individual you have limitations. Not only will you never be able to do everything you'll also never be a master of everything. To try and perfect something requires time, something we have a finite amount of when we're born into this world. This is why it's most important to find where your talents lie and use what little time you have to strive for perfection there.

If you can't accept those limitations you'll never get anywhere. Because the thing about limitations is they're individual. Once you accept you're not going to be a master at everything you'll realise you don't have to be a master at everything. I don't have to be a fantastic cook because there's many people who already excel in that field.


That is far from true. I want to go everywhere; if anything I am having trouble picking only one direction. Also, I don't know if anything I could try would actually work and so I have a hard time convincing myself to bother. Without a guarantee that it will work, I don't want to expend the effort to try. As soon as I'm certain that I can accomplish anything, I plan to, but I can't stand the thought of failing and being worse off than before I started. Measure twice, cut once and all that.

I'm amazed that you can go to talking about breaking limitations and then go on to state something akin to "you never fail if you never try" in the space between paragraphs. You go from admonishing those who shrug and say "we can't" to saying you do basically the exact same thing.

In fairness your first statement is somewhat correct, what I said isn't true. However it's not far from true. You absolutely are standing still, you've even basically just admitted as such. But it isn't because you don't believe there's anywhere to go, you're just not prepared to put the effort in to go there.

For all your big talk about self-improvement you've fallen at the first hurdle of bettering yourself: not trying. While it's true if you never try you never fail you'll also never succeed either. And if you don't fail you'll never learn from those failures which means you'll never learn how to succeed. Try and fail, but never fail to try.


Everybody's not perfect. That doesn't take strength of character at all. What takes strength of character is saying, "I will be perfect, no matter what it takes." (With the caveat "...eventually.")

Except as I've already noted, you never will be. Not unless you have eternity to better yourself.


It is not that I do not know they could be made; it is that I do not know that they can. I do not see a way how, or I see ways that are unacceptible. I could lose weight, for example, but not without giving up the succulent foods in sufficient quantities that I depend upon to get enough hedonistic satisfaction to tolerate the indignities and horrors of my life, or exerting myself to an agonizing degree with the mind-numbing tedium of repetitive exercise, or gambling money on some miracle diet pill that almost certainly won't work, or just taking a knife and hacking off chunks of my flesh, or paying some hack doctor $20K dollars to liposuction me. None of our available methods of problem-solving are worth anything to me; if they were, I'd solve the problem. Instead, lacking anything better to do, I wait for science to invent a better way; it's the most effective method I see available, and it has worked in quite a few cases; I have solutions today that I could never have imagined five years ago, and I see no reason not to keep putzing around for another five years to see what else comes along to make things finally start working for me.

No, you know how they can be made. You've acknowledged that you know this. However you have no desire to make the sacrifices necessary to improve yourself and thus you have no desire to improve yourself. You believe yourself above others and yet you have no drive to better yourself.

You're no better than those you believe beneath you, frankly I'd say you're worse.


I do this all the time, reflexively. It sucks; I hate every second of it. I would rather be happy than successful - but ultimately, I can't be happy unless I am successful. My life is filled with such paradoxes, hence my tendency to perceive the entire world as a torture device engineered to accomplish my destruction. Obviously this is the crazy talking, but it's also rooted in truth, minus the solipsistic angle. From a Darwinian perspective, I was meant to fail and die so that some "fitter" lifeform could prosper at my expense. I do not accept this. It is wrong, no universe should be permitted to function in such a hideous and villainous manner, and so I behave as if it were simply untrue, because it doesn't deserve to be acknowledged as truth.

No, you just want success to be handed to you on a silver platter. You desire success but don't have the resolve to earn it. And if you don't earn it then you don't deserve it. You're content to shake your fist at the universe and vent your frustrations on it for not making things easy for you instead of carving your own path.

You believe yourself to be a great thinker yet all I see is a great complainer.



"Success and improvement are what's important, unless it directly involves my effort"?

Guess how science gets things done. It experiments. It tries to do stuff. If what it tries fails, it tries something else. You can think about things all you want, but if you don't do anything with the ideas you create, there's really no difference from not having the ideas in the first place. If you're going to sit around and wait for things to change for the better, you're not doing your part to try to make things better, for yourself or the society you so clearly despise. All you're doing is sitting in your "I'm better than y'all" chair, complaining about how much things suck, and not using your obviously vast intellectual abilities to help the world, even though, as you said, we would all be so much better off under your benevolent dictatorship.

And once again you win the succinctness award. Good job.

[willpell]

{{scrubbed}}

[georgie_leech]

I consider those people to be a waste of the resources necessary to keep them alive. At least if there are more than, say, 500 of them worldwide. Were there only that many, it might not be an unacceptible redundancy to leave them to that form of self-indulgence, especially if the data could be recorded for consumption by others. But as it is, we have uncountable legions of people who are not trying to be special or unique in any way, shape or form. They just take up space and squander their time, often greatly inconveniencing those around them in the process. I believe they do not belong in this world; someplace akin to the Christian concept of Heaven would fit them perfectly, and the sooner the lot of them proceed directly there, the sooner the rest of us can make use of everything they leave behind.




...Did you honestly just say that the world would be better off if the people just trying to get by would be dead? As in, the vast majority of the people on the planet, especially those in developing nations or otherwise experiencing extreme poverty, that have no other option?

Bolded so there can be no misconstrusion of which words I'm refering to.

[razark]

I consider those people to be a waste of the resources necessary to keep them alive.
...
They just take up space and squander their time, often greatly inconveniencing those around them in the process. I believe they do not belong in this world; someplace akin to the Christian concept of Heaven would fit them perfectly, and the sooner the lot of them proceed directly there, the sooner the rest of us can make use of everything they leave behind.
I retract my previous comment. Please do not try to make the world a better place.

[opticalshadow]

i do believe in common sense, commonsense tells us fire is hot, common sense tells us not to touch it because it will burn. some people can deny this, but the majority people would agree, the majority know it, the majority means common.

now not all areas have common sense, dnd is a hard one. but common sense itself exsists, now im not agreeign with anyone in this thread on the matter, take it for what you will.


concerning the next portion, about people who do not better themselves should die or whatever, by your train of logic, you shoudlnt stop at betterign yourself, which doesnt actually mean much. i can better myself my any arbitray means i wish. i could read a book, i could eat a new type of food. in either case it doesnt actually mean anything. so technically anyone meets taht value, even if you never become a famous singer, but you sing in the shower that alone fits your RAW for the subject.

now if we want to RAI that, or RAOC, then we could say, make themselves better in a way to make the world better. but thats a fairly high standered, unless your cureing things your basically worthless so kill them off, but then nobody removes garbage so we need to unkill them, but they dont really personally do much. and in the grand sheme of things if we cant leave our planet and eventually galaxy were all dead anyways, so unless your specifically doing just that your worthless.


so in the end, the human race, under your RAW, and possibly even your RAI, seems to be useless in its current form and should be removed, leaving the "lesser" creatures to eventually perish.

[Voyager_I]

Were I the religious type, Willpell, I would pray for you.

...and everyone around you.

[KillianHawkeye]

Guys, let's lay off of willpell. I'm starting to feel sorry for him.




i do believe in common sense, commonsense tells us fire is hot, common sense tells us not to touch it because it will burn. some people can deny this, but the majority people would agree, the majority know it, the majority means common.

That's not common sense, it's common knowledge which we've all gained through experience. Experience tells you that fire is hot, because you felt heat when you were near it before. Experience tells you not to touch it, because you touched it before and got burned.

Common knowledge and common sense are two entirely different things. One is about facts, the other is about reasons. For example, we know (from experience) that water is an effective tool for putting out fires, and because water is such a plentiful resource, using it for fire fighting is common sense. However, common sense is not always correct. If you applied the above principle to a grease fire, you'd actually be making the situation worse since it will likely cause the grease (and therefore, the fire) to spread.

[willpell]

...Did you honestly just say that the world would be better off if the people just trying to get by would be dead?

I did not mean it quite like that, and have edited the above to include a disclaimer as to my actual intended meaning at the time.


As in, the vast majority of the people on the planet, especially those in developing nations or otherwise experiencing extreme poverty, that have no other option?

Although, now that you mention it, if I had to live the kind of life those people do, I would beg daily for the mercy of death. (Which I do anyway as it stands, except that it's more like 3d4 times a month.) Quantity of life is not preferable to quality thereof. I would rather see those people given decent lives, but that appears to be beyond our planet's abilities, and I have more than once thought that they might be better off having their suffering ended, quickly and painlessly, rather than continuing to just barely stay alive in a constant state of misery (which, to judge by the preponderance of tribal warfare and barbaric customs and stuff, is also a constant state of rabid madness where they are compelled to spread their pain to everyone they can reach - which I pretty much figure as the motivation of just about every objectively-Evil race in D&D, save for highfalutin' ones like the drow and mind flayers...those I equate with the self-indulgent and merciless corporate raiders whose predation is largely responsible for the third world's continued poverty).


i do believe in common sense, commonsense tells us fire is hot, common sense tells us not to touch it because it will burn. some people can deny this, but the majority people would agree, the majority know it, the majority means common.

Thank you. This has always been my contention in that respect.


concerning the next portion, about people who do not better themselves should die or whatever, by your train of logic, you shoudlnt stop at betterign yourself, which doesnt actually mean much. i can better myself my any arbitray means i wish. i could read a book, i could eat a new type of food. in either case it doesnt actually mean anything.

Au contraire, that means everything. The sole meaningful purpose of life, IMO is to have unique experiences and form opinions and judgments about them. (Technically, bad experiences might count, but I do believe we should keep them to a bare minimum for reasons that I hope I have already made clear.)


and in the grand sheme of things if we cant leave our planet and eventually galaxy were all dead anyways, so unless your specifically doing just that your worthless.

That part is pretty much what I believe. To me, the Earth is a small cage for a very large number of rats, who are already at each other's throats from the competition, and it's only going to keep getting worse. With the cosmos as vast as it is, I see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't all spread out across a thousand galaxies, each person ruling a planet by themselves, getting occasional visits by ansible-hologram from their neighbors but mostly amusing themselves by watching a handful of nannites terraform the planet to their specifications. (If the planets turn out to be inhabited this complicates matters, but we could still do this to various Marses and Venuses and Ganymedes that are never going to be worth anything unless terraformed, excluding any which a nonhuman species considers inhabitable; if all planets end up so excluded we'll have to settle for space stations.)


so in the end, the human race, under your RAW, and possibly even your RAI, seems to be useless in its current form and should be removed, leaving the "lesser" creatures to eventually perish.

Not sure what you mean by this bit; the "lesser" creatures are animals? I don't see why they'd perish; if anything they'd probably be, dimly in their barely-sentient minds, glad to be rid of us.


Were I the religious type, Willpell, I would pray for you.

I would be deeply insulted if you did. If anything resembling a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity existed AFAICT, I'd never have had cause to get as worked-up as I am. God and I don't fit in the same universe; he's welcome to come answer everybody's prayers any time, starting with my fervent wish not to be here. I'd take Hell over this planet in a heartbeat.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham:

Note to the OP: Asking your single narrow question would have been just fine and would have avoided the debacle that followed.

Notes to all:

1) Real world religion and politics are inappropriate topics on this forum. That is true even when these topics intersect gaming or other relevant topics.

2) Insulting other posters is not permitted here. That is true regardless of the verbiage used or the extent to which your insult is true, accurate, or believed by you to be true or accurate. Discussing, debating, or even just plainly disagreeing with others is to be expected, but insulting others for any reason is just not allowed. That includes insulting others individually or collectively, by name or by category, by implication or explicitly. Also, dressing up ones insults in erudition, attempted humor, or popular memes doesn't change the inappropriateness of the comments, and they will be dealt with according to the Forum Rules.

Because this thread is mainly insults and inappropriate topics, it's time to lock it.