Master of Dragonfire Flies

[Gruftzwerg]

The thing you say you have a problem with is literally the exact same thing you are doing in this thread. You're claiming that "common sense", which means your opinion, is RAW, which is just not true.

I only try to apply "common sense" where the rules allow/force me to it.

If a word used in actual rule text ain't defined by 3.5, you fall back to basic English definition. There is no other option. And you have not the permission to define the word yourself for 3.5 (at least not by RAW, RAI you may do that), to set limitations that aren't mentioned there in the text.

Topic ain't defined in 3.5 (if it is, pls point me to it), thus you need to fall back to "common sense"/general English definition. And as show multiple times, the rules set no limitation for "topic". As such you have the duty to cover the full extend possible of the general English definition. And that forces you to create specific topics for anything and everything. Even subtopics.
As shown, I can explain by RAW (defined/undefined) when and why I have to rely on common sense. Can you say the same thing for you argumentation? You demand that I ignore that the "Benefits:" section is defined and thus anything that wants to change/add to it, needs to create a specific exception. And the short description in plain language doesn't accomplish that.

[InvisibleBison]

Topic ain't defined in 3.5 (if it is, pls point me to it), thus you need to fall back to "common sense"/general English definition. And as show multiple times, the rules set no limitation for "topic".

This is all true.

As such you have the duty to cover the full extend possible of the general English definition. And that forces you to create specific topics for anything and everything. Even subtopics.

And this is where you go wrong. "Every individually distinguishable part of the rules is a topic" is one way to delineate what is and is not a topic in the 3.5 rules, but it's not the only one. And without any guidance from the rules, there's no reason to think any one reasonable delineation is superior to any other. There's no reason why I or anyone else has to accept your opinion about how to interpret the rules - especially when I'm arguing that your interpretation is bad!

As shown, I can explain by RAW (defined/undefined) when and why I have to rely on common sense. Can you say the same thing for you argumentation?

Yes, I can. It's the exact same points where your interpretation relies on common sense, namely when we get into areas the rules don't cover. One such example of which is what happens when a wingless creature take Improved Dragon Wings.

You demand that I ignore that the "Benefits:" section is defined and thus anything that wants to change/add to it, needs to create a specific exception. And the short description in plain language doesn't accomplish that.

And you demand that I ignore the description of the feat, even though it's part of the rules and anything that wants to override it needs to create a specific exception, and the benefits section doesn't accomplish that.


This is, I think, going to be my last post in this thread. Unless you can accept that your opinion is not RAW and I don't have to accept it as such, there's really no grounds for us to debate.

[Gruftzwerg]

And this is where you go wrong. "Every individually distinguishable part of the rules is a topic" is one way to delineate what is and is not a topic in the 3.5 rules, but it's not the only one. And without any guidance from the rules, there's no reason to think any one reasonable delineation is superior to any other. There's no reason why I or anyone else has to accept your opinion about how to interpret the rules - especially when I'm arguing that your interpretation is bad!


Yes, I can. It's the exact same points where your interpretation relies on common sense, namely when we get into areas the rules don't cover. One such example of which is what happens when a wingless creature take Improved Dragon Wings.

Excuse me. I am following the rules as written as there is no limitation set to "topic" by text. Your are relying on limitations that are not presented by the rules as written for your argument. This is the tiny line between RAW and RAI here. RAW doesn't imply things that are not there and takes the full extend of what is there. Any possible subtopic is a mechanically valid topic as the rules are written. Nitpicking would rely on implying limitation that are not there and thus automatically crossing the border to the RAI side of interpretations.

And you demand that I ignore the description of the feat, even though it's part of the rules and anything that wants to override it needs to create a specific exception, and the benefits section doesn't accomplish that.

I demand nothing. The definition of the feats benefits section and the PSR does.

[lylsyly]

The Primary Source Rule is spelled out in BoED, DMG, Frostburn, MM, PHB, and Unapproachable East. Why they put it in only 3 non-core books is beyond me.

In every one of these errata files it calls out the PHB as the source for “how you play the game.”

Allocation of, qualifying for, and the usage of feats is therefore under the realm of the PHB. This is RAW.

From the PHB, page 87. “Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.” This is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 4. Yes, based on that sidebar you do automatically qualify for the Improved Dragon Wings feat. However ……..

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Dragon WIngs Feat. “Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide.” This passage describes a physical change in your character that is backed up by two mentions of wings in the benefits section. This is not fluff. It is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Improved Dragon Wings Feat. “Your draconic wings now grant you flight.” I will grant you that the benefits section doesn't mention wings, however. The fact that it calls for the previous feat in the prerequisites section that gives you wings and is obviously RAW means that this feat does not give you what you want. This too is obviously RAW.

Your attempts at obfuscation by trying to bring up primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, not to mention topics and subtopics does not confuse anyone at all. Your build is not RAW.

I actually like some of the builds you have in your signature but in this case you are wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Primary Source Rule is spelled out in BoED, DMG, Frostburn, MM, PHB, and Unapproachable East. Why they put it in only 3 non-core books is beyond me.

I can try to imagine what happened imho.
First the ability to ready text as written with structure & hierarchy in mind is nothing that D&D invented. It thrives from the ability to read law text. Because laws work on the principle that only what is written in words (and the law hierarchy) count and not the intention behind it. The court will go strict by the book, even if the baddy gets away due to this. But this might cause future changes in the laws ( = ERRATA in d&d).
Laws are a kind of rules. And rules in general share this aspect, that they need to be taken as literary as possible while having their structure in mind to be read correct. This is also true for rules in program code (the computer takes the binary code literary) or any kind of rules in (video-)games (e.g. trading card games).
The more complex the rules get, the more you need to be aware of the PSR which can create a hierarchy between rules. And as said, 3.5 is complex. The rules where created with the PSR in mind but it wasn't mentioned in the early books, because it is something elementary to reading rules. The authors forgot to mention this. I guess when you are used to something, you sometimes forget that it may not be something everybody is doing (reading text as literary as possible: RAW).
This caused many problems in the starting years of 3.5. The official forums where wild and the arguments even crazier.
just a few examples:
a) people where extrapolating what counts as an attack from the invisible spell as general rule..
b) people where extrapolating the monk ability to enhance their unarmed strikes for non-monks..
c) people had problems to understand why size changing abilities don't stack (even if the ability text doesn't deny it), because they had problems to see the hierarchy created by the rules (and find the rule that causes this: the stacking rules).
This ended up in the ERRATA where the PSR was added. It contains the rules how to read text literary while creating a hierarchy and rules to solve contradictions).


edit: also note that 3.0/3.5 is the first edition where the publisher had access to feedback via internet. This helped with creating the ERRATA. This was all new back then.

In every one of these errata files it calls out the PHB as the source for “how you play the game.”
....
From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Dragon WIngs Feat. “Your draconic ancestry manifests as a pair of wings that aid your jumps and allow you to glide.” This passage describes a physical change in your character that is backed up by two mentions of wings in the benefits section. This is not fluff. It is RAW.

From Races of the Dragon, page 100, the Improved Dragon Wings Feat. “Your draconic wings now grant you flight.” I will grant you that the benefits section doesn't mention wings, however. The fact that it calls for the previous feat in the prerequisites section that gives you wings and is obviously RAW means that this feat does not give you what you want. This too is obviously RAW.

Your attempts at obfuscation by trying to bring up primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, not to mention topics and subtopics does not confuse anyone at all. Your build is not RAW.

I actually like some of the builds you have in your signature but in this case you are wrong.

You see, this specific chase sole is created by bypassing the requirements due to being a dragon and the feat being a dragonblooded feat. Normally, the requirements would ensure that you have wings and everything would be fine. Only because of the automatic qualification it is possible to fly with the feat but without wings. This is because the benefit section doesn't care if you have wings.

Imho a similar example is "Enlarge Person". The "target humanoid" requirement is only relevant at the time of casting and later only the "beneficial effect" of the spell counts. When Enlarge Person is cast on a humanoid that later changes form somehow to not be a humanoid anymore, the effect doesn't stop to function. Because the effect nowhere requires you to be a human. It only requires you to have a size it can change.

The same can be said here for our "dragon takes Imp. Dragon Wings directly" example. Normally feat requirements are always active and this wouldn't work the same. But by bypassing the requirements (automatic qualification) we create a similar situation where the requirements are irrelevant now. It's now the same as with "Enlarge Person" after it has been cast. Sole the effect counts.

Thus, it may not sound intuitive to you, but I still claim this to be 100% RAW.

[loky1109]

This is because the benefit section doesn't care if you have wings.

Lets use this logics to spell Rouse from PHBII (p. 123)

With a loud snap of your fingers, you cause any sleeping creatures in the spell’s area to awaken.

This spell has no effect on creatures that are unconscious due to being reduced to negative hit points, or that have taken nonlethal damage in excess of their current hit points.

If we ignoring italic part of spell, it does... nothing?

So we can see, your logics about separation rules on rules and narrative is wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

Lets use this logics to spell Rouse from PHBII (p. 123)


If we ignoring italic part of spell, it does... nothing?

So we can see, your logics about separation rules on rules and narrative is wrong.

Yeah the original text of the spell if flawed and does nothing.

That's why the ERRATA fixed that spell:

Replace the spell description with the following text: “This spell awakens creatures from magical and nonmagical sleep. It has no effect on creatures that are otherwise unconscious.”

Here you have found an example where the spell would have been useless without the Errata. Niche catch.