Master of Dragonfire Flies

[InvisibleBison]

That is what we have been arguing about..
That the sentence your interpretation of Improved Dragon Wings relies on the sentence that is declared as:

So, class & race descriptions may have "plain language" that are clearly not rules in you opinion, but when it comes to feat description "plain language" creates rules? If that is you stance, no wonder that whatever I say I will never convince you if you don't treat things (plain language) equal.^^

Whether or not something is "plain language" and whether or not it's rules are two separate issues. The rules never say that "plain language" inherently means not-rules, therefore "plain language" text is rules text unless there's some text explicitly calling it out as non-rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Whether or not something is "plain language" and whether or not it's rules are two separate issues. The rules never say that "plain language" inherently means not-rules, therefore "plain language" text is rules text unless there's some text explicitly calling it out as non-rules.

Due to "plain language" not being defined in 3.5, we need to fall back to general English definition.
And I tried to explain that "plain language" never equals "rules", since rules are expressed in technical defined terms.
You can give someone an first impression or a (metaphoric) example with plain language.
But you can't argue that plain language is the correct technical term. These two are opposites. Thus, plain language in 3.5 can't be part of the rule, since it doesn't use the right terminology.

[InvisibleBison]

And I tried to explain that "plain language" never equals "rules", since rules are expressed in technical defined terms.

This is not correct. Outside of D&D, rules absolutely can be expressed in plain language, and there's no text in any D&D book overriding this general usage. Thus, the fact that feat descriptions are expressed in plain language does not disqualify them from being rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is not correct. Outside of D&D, rules absolutely can be expressed in plain language, and there's no text in any D&D book overriding this general usage. Thus, the fact that feat descriptions are expressed in plain language does not disqualify them from being rules.

3.5 defines keywords and uses em to express rules, while plain language avoids these defined keywords to give oversimplified examples (which may be not technically correct). If you don't use the technical terms, you don't create a rule.

[Doctor Despair]

I was always under the impression that the description text preceding prcs or feats was there to inform RAI, not to give hard restrictions on legality. After all, if the description text was meant to create prerequisites, why even have a prerequisite section? If it's meant to delineate what benefits are given, why wouldn't it be in the benefit section? With that said, as Gruft said earlier, a DM has the discretion to adjudicate how feats and prcs work via RAI, and no reasonable DM would let this fly (pun intended) at their table. This is a dysfunction caused by bypassing the prerequisite section entirely, as those normally preclude nonintuitive results like these.

[InvisibleBison]

3.5 defines keywords and uses em to express rules, while plain language avoids these defined keywords to give oversimplified examples (which may be not technically correct). If you don't use the technical terms, you don't create a rule.

That's a perfectly valid method of interpreting the rules, but it's not RAW, because it's not what the actual rules say to do.

[Doctor Despair]

That's a perfectly valid method of interpreting the rules, but it's not RAW, because it's not what the actual rules say to do.

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the prerequisite section?

[InvisibleBison]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the prerequisite section?

The purpose of the prerequisites section is to lay out what mechanical elements a character has to have to take a feat. I'm not arguing that the description is part of the prerequisite section; I'm arguing that the feat description and the benefits section are synonymous with each other, and that Gruftzwerg's character cannot benefit from Improved Dragon Wings, even though they are able to take it, because they lack any draconic wings for the feat to improve.

[Doctor Despair]

I'm arguing that the feat description and the benefits section are synonymous with each other

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the benefits section?

[InvisibleBison]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the benefits section?

The purpose of the benefits section is to say what the feat lets a character who takes it do.

[Doctor Despair]

The purpose of the benefits section is to say what the feat lets a character who takes it do.

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

[JNAProductions]

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

Because WotC has really sloppy editing.

[InvisibleBison]

So if the prerequisites section is where the prerequisites go, and the benefits section is where the benefits go, then why would the description section carry weight with regard to either of those topics? I.e., if it had information regarding benefits or prerequisites, why would that information not be listed in the appropriate sections?

The description carries weight with regards to the benefits section because it's saying the same thing as the benefits section but in different words. That's what I meant before when I said they were synonyms. If someone's interpretation of the benefits section contradicts the description, or vice versa, then that interpretation is wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

Because WotC has really sloppy editing.

100% agree on this^^
But this argument only counts for RAI. RAW doesn't care for (or even welcomes) bad editing.

The description carries weight with regards to the benefits section because it's saying the same thing as the benefits section but in different words. That's what I meant before when I said they were synonyms. If someone's interpretation of the benefits section contradicts the description, or vice versa, then that interpretation is wrong.

Sorry, but your argument extrapolates info from text passages without having the permission to do so. (not RAW)

1. 3.5 has defined how you should read feats as shown in my previous posts
2. The Primary Source Rule dictates that the "Benefits:" section is the Primary Source when it comes to the mechanical (rule wise) benefits for Feats.

Whit that in mind, you just need to apply the Primary Source Rule correct.
The fluff text your interpretation is relying on has no rights to make changes on a "general" level, since it is not the Primary Source for its topic ( the benefit for a feat).
Neither does it create any more specific situation to call out exceptions (the wording doesn't indicate any kind of exception to be made and its part of the same feat.).
Thus, the text has by RAW no permission to do anything. If you want to rely on that fluff text, you have left the RAW ground and have entered the RAI grounds.

No matter how you look at it, you don't have the permission to do what you try to do by RAW.
If we are talking about RAI, you sure have a fair point and I'll admit that without having a problem with it.
But if we are talking about RAW, your arguments so far simply gets shattered by the 2 points mentioned in this post.

RAW doesn't just mean to read the text in the book without instructions. RAW sets instructions how to read things. And if you ignore that, your interpretation becomes RAI. That simple.

PS: I hope I don't sound to harsh/mean. I try to be as nice as possible when it comes to rule discussions, but I dunno if that intention reaches the readers...^^
edit: If anyone should have a hard time to get what I am talking about here, really just ask and I try to further explain it. It's better ask and talk it out instead of sitting it out. We are not at school, so there is no reason to be shy here. Imho this is important to get a gasp of how RAW handles the rules.

[InvisibleBison]

Sorry, but your argument extrapolates info from text passages without having the permission to do so. (not RAW)

Your argument does the same thing. Every argument that isn't just quotes from the rules text does so.

2. The Primary Source Rule dictates that the "Benefits:" section is the Primary Source when it comes to the mechanical (rule wise) benefits for Feats.

There's two problems with this argument:

1. Nowhere is it stated that the benefits section specifically is the primary source for how a feat works. That's just your opinion. It's just as possible that the entirety of the feat's entry is the primary source for how the feat works.
2. The primary source rule only applies when there's a disagreement between two sources. There's no disagreement here; the feat description says "X and Y" and the benefits section says "Y" in great detail.

[Gruftzwerg]

Your argument does the same thing. Every argument that isn't just quotes from the rules text does so.



There's two problems with this argument:

1. Nowhere is it stated that the benefits section specifically is the primary source for how a feat works. That's just your opinion. It's just as possible that the entirety of the feat's entry is the primary source for how the feat works.
2. The primary source rule only applies when there's a disagreement between two sources. There's no disagreement here; the feat description says "X and Y" and the benefits section says "Y" in great detail.

For the most part I show how the rule mechanics are behind my statement.

As said, the "Benefit:" of a "feat" is defined. Due to this is has supremacy for its own topic: "Feat - Benefit:"
This causes it to be the primary source for this topic. If you want to know what a feat does, this is the primary source. Anything else needs to create a specific exception to alter the rules/mechanics provided by that paragraph. And the short description at the start of a feat in plain language does not create any new specific niche, nor has it the permission to do changes on a global level.


Topic supremacy:
I think this is something many are struggling with. The Primary Source Rule doesn't set any limitation for what can be a topic. Thus anything is a topic, in a chain where it has to follow global rules, while still being the primary source for their own niche. Thus the "Benefit:" section of feats is the primary source for the "benefits of feats" (how convenient..^^). Or take Power Attack. It's its own primary source, but when it comes to attacking in general we have global combat rules for that and Power Attack has to obey em. Leap Attack relies and Power Attack and creates its own niche (thus PA is the primary source and leap attack is the specific exception). But at the same time Leap Attack is its own primary source...
I hope that this doesn't confuse more that it helps. But it's not easy to explain topic supremacy..

[InvisibleBison]

As said, the "Benefit:" of a "feat" is defined. Due to this is has supremacy for its own topic: "Feat - Benefit:"
This causes it to be the primary source for this topic. If you want to know what a feat does, this is the primary source. Anything else needs to create a specific exception to alter the rules/mechanics provided by that paragraph. And the short description at the start of a feat in plain language does not create any new specific niche, nor has it the permission to do changes on a global level.

Again, that is just your opinion. There's no reason to say this is a better definition of what the primary source for how a feat works than saying that the feat as a whole is a primary source for how the feat works. Your own argument backs this up:

The Primary Source Rule doesn't set any limitation for what can be a topic. Thus anything is a topic

Since anything can be a topic, there's no reason a feat cannot be an entire topic in and of itself. Deciding whether a feat is one topic or several topics is interpreting the rules. Any argument based on saying this is or isn't a topic is RAI, not RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, that is just your opinion. There's no reason to say this is a better definition of what the primary source for how a feat works than saying that the feat as a whole is a primary source for how the feat works. Your own argument backs this up:



Since anything can be a topic, there's no reason a feat cannot be an entire topic in and of itself. Deciding whether a feat is one topic or several topics is interpreting the rules. Any argument based on saying this is or isn't a topic is RAI, not RAW.

It's not "anything can be a topic", it more "everything is a topic". Just as in real life anything is a topic for its own. It is important that anything is its own topic, otherwise you can't set a clear hierarchy for the PSR to work. (and the psr demands it, see below)

As said the is no definition/limitation for what qualifies as "topic" by RAW (only a few examples are given, but nothing indicates any restriction). Thus we fall back to common English definition. Which means everything is its own primary source (while other things still may be primary towards it regards other more general topics).

0. We have the Primary Source Rule (PSR) that sets the Rule hierarchy and is the primary source for the rule hierarchy it creates. If you want to know how 2 or more rules stand to each other, this rule will help you to solve it. It is always on top (most primary source) for any rule interaction. You may never ignore these rules (unless something would call out a specific exception, but IIRC that never did happen in 3.5. The PSR was never ERRATAed).

1. A feat as a hole has to follow the rules presented in "Feats". These are the rules for feats overall in general.

2. If you want to know how to read a feat, then the primary source is the definition of "Feat Description".

3. The "Feat Description" defines categories and explains which rules to expect where. It it primary source to itself, while still accepting the general feat rules are more general for anything which it outside of its specific niche.

4. The "Benefit" section of a feat is defined as what the beneficial mechanics are behind a feat. It's is own primary source while still accepting anything that belong to the topics mentioned above as more general rules.

You don't have the freedom to sole use more global topics. "Specific Trumps General" always creates a new topic. Every time you define something more precise, you have basically created a more specific new (sub-)topic (just as in real life). You may not restrict what a topic is in any way, since the PSR never set any restrictions. The way topics are created could be visually described like "reel numbers" can be more precise by adding another digit. Same with 3.5 topics, who can be more specific (precise) and thus create their own topic.

You are still doing the same mistake by not precisely following the hierarchy set by the PSR. All your attempts so far have failed for the very same reason (no offense here, it's just that we are running in a circle here for a while ;) ).

[InvisibleBison]

We have the Primary Source Rule (PSR) that sets the Rule hierarchy and is the primary source for the rule hierarchy it creates.

No, we don't. The primary source rule doesn't set any sort of hierarchy. The notion that a text can be a primary source and a non-primary source at the same time is not found in the text of the primary source rule. It's something you've made up to help you understand how the primary source rule works.

it's just that we are running in a circle here for a while ;).

Yes, we are, because you keep insisting that your interpretation of the rules are RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, we don't. The primary source rule doesn't set any sort of hierarchy. The notion that a text can be a primary source and a non-primary source at the same time is not found in the text of the primary source rule. It's something you've made up to help you understand how the primary source rule works.




Yes, we are, because you keep insisting that your interpretation of the rules are RAW.

You still struggle with the logic behind the rule presented in the PSR.

1. anything is a topic and thus the primary source for its own (specific) topic

2. while the PSR only explains how 2 rules interact witch each other, it can easily be used on multiple rules interacting at the same time. (e.g. general attack rules > Power Attack > Leap Attack).

By always comparing two rules you can work yourself through the chain/hierarchy. When you use Leap Attack, it is the most specific rule for its niche and may call out exceptions for this (see Benefit of Leap Attack). Since it makes use of Power Attack, it must still follow the general rules presented there (since PA is the primary source for PA), except for the parts where the exception was created. But at the same time PA needs to follow the parts of the general rules for attacking (since those are the primary source for attacking), where PA itself didn't create any specific exception.

Multiple rules are interacting most of the time together. It's just that we got used to the most common general rules (attacking, spell casting..) that we forget that we are using em too when we use special abilities. But they are still in the rule chain when you use those abilities. And you need to reapply the PSR until you get though the entire hierarchy (to make sure that you don't miss any more global rule where no exception was created).

The PSR creates a rule structure like a tree. This is needed to compare any rule with any other rule it might interact with.

[InvisibleBison]

You still struggle with the logic behind the rule presented in the PSR.

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

[Doctor Despair]

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

To be fair, that they don't contradict each other would be in Gruft's favor. The description says your dragon wings now grant you flight. The benefit says you gain a fly speed (with no mention of wings). If we are to assume these sections don't disagree with each other, it would mean creatures with draconic wings gain some untyped fly speed, and all creatures also (separately) gain the specified fly speed. On the other hand, if you read it to mean that the benefit doesn't apply if you don't have draconic wings, then you are saying they do disagree with each other.

[InvisibleBison]

To be fair, that they don't contradict each other would be in Gruft's favor. The description says your dragon wings now grant you flight. The benefit says you gain a fly speed (with no mention of wings). If we are to assume these sections don't disagree with each other, it would mean creatures with draconic wings gain some untyped fly speed, and all creatures also (separately) gain the specified fly speed. On the other hand, if you read it to mean that the benefit doesn't apply if you don't have draconic wings, then you are saying they do disagree with each other.

That's one way to interpret the feat. You could also read it as the description saying that your wings let you fly and the benefits explaining the details of how your flight works. I think this is a better interpretation, because it involves treating the feat as an atomic rules element, which I think is how feats should be treated.

[Doctor Despair]

That's one way to interpret the feat. You could also read it as the description saying that your wings let you fly and the benefits explaining the details of how your flight works. I think this is a better interpretation, because it involves treating the feat as an atomic rules element, which I think is how feats should be treated.

Even in that situation, they are still disagreeing with each other. The benefit says you gain a fly speed. The description says you only do if you have dragon wings. I'm not dismissing your reading, just saying that your claim that they don't disagree with each other seems incorrect.

[Gruftzwerg]

I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree that it's written in the primary source rule. This is because it's not written in the primary source rule. It's a reasonable interpretation of the primary source rule, but it isn't what the actual text of the rule says. That is the point that you seem to be unable to understand. Your interpretation of the rules is not RAW.

But this is all actually irrelevant. The primary source rule only comes into play when two sources contradict each other, and the description and benefits section of Improved Dragon Wings don't contradict each other.

Could you be so nice and point out where your interpretation of the PSR differs? I mean, I don't claim that my interpretation is perfect. Thus, it would be nice to see which text passage leads you to a different interpretation? (kindly asking).

[InvisibleBison]

Even in that situation, they are still disagreeing with each other. The benefit says you gain a fly speed. The description says you only do if you have dragon wings. I'm not dismissing your reading, just saying that your claim that they don't disagree with each other seems incorrect.

No, there is no disagreement, because you can't look at just the description or just the benefits section. You have to look at the whole of the feat to understand what it means. Examining each individual component is not a valid way to interpret the feat if you treat feats as atomic rules elements.

Could you be so nice and point out where your interpretation of the PSR differs? I mean, I don't claim that my interpretation is perfect. Thus, it would be nice to see which text passage leads you to a different interpretation? (kindly asking).

For one thing, you claim that the primary source rule applies when two rules interact with each other. You mentioned using the PSR to adjudicate the interaction between the general attack rules and Power Attack, but those rules don't contradict each other. Power Attack creates an exception to the general rule (that's how all rule elements in this edition work) and an exception is not a contradiction. You also mention a "rule hierarchy" and claim that the PSR is the primary source for it, but there's no mention of any such thing in the PSR. I don't see how a rule can be a primary source for a concept it doesn't mention.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, there is no disagreement, because you can't look at just the description or just the benefits section. You have to look at the whole of the feat to understand what it means. Examining each individual component is not a valid way to interpret the feat if you treat feats as atomic rules elements.

That is extrapolating info without permission and thus is Rules as Intended (RAI) and not Rules as Written (RAW). RAW defines what is a requirement, or a benefit or none of em. It leaves no room for these kind of thought. That is the territory of RAI and there is nothing wrong with your RAI opinion. But you can't demand that it is RAW. RAW doesn't give you the permission to do these things. It's strict in that chase and the main difference between RAW and RAI. RAI is not totally blind guessing. Most of the time it relies on extrapolated info to make more accurate guesses. And it is often a good tool for balanced ruling options (for the DM). But pls stop confusing it with RAW.

For one thing, you claim that the primary source rule applies when two rules interact with each other. You mentioned using the PSR to adjudicate the interaction between the general attack rules and Power Attack, but those rules don't contradict each other. Power Attack creates an exception to the general rule (that's how all rule elements in this edition work) and an exception is not a contradiction. You also mention a "rule hierarchy" and claim that the PSR is the primary source for it, but there's no mention of any such thing in the PSR. I don't see how a rule can be a primary source for a concept it doesn't mention.

The hierarchy is created when you place the rule-pieces of the PSR together.

1. The PSR mentions topic supremacy but doesn't set any limitation. Further, "Topic" is undefined in 3.5. Thus we fall back to common English definition and common sense. And that backs me perfectly up that anything unique is its own unique topic. Is the "benefit of a specific feat" a unique topic? In my common sense yes. Especially since it it declared/defined. Thus it is its own primary source.

2. Where do we find general rules? In the primary source for the topic. So, if Power Attack is creating an exception like you admitted.. "how can you deny that there is a primary source" to look up the general rules to see if something contradicts? See? The rule hierarchy is always there and always checking if everything is legal. Even if you didn't notice it so far. And if you use Leap Attack, you should now see how a rule chain/hierarchy is build (starting from combat rules > melee/ranged rules > standard attack/full attack rules > Power attack rules > Leap Attack rules). Every more specific exception/situation has a primary source to look up the general rules. It should be easy to understand that anything in this chain is primary towards one side, while trying to be more specific to the other side.

[InvisibleBison]

That is extrapolating info without permission and thus is Rules as Intended (RAI) and not Rules as Written (RAW)

Actually, it's the other meaning of RAI - rules as interpreted. Everything that isn't quotes from the text is an interpretation of the rules, and no reasonable interpretation has any more claim to being "correct" or "RAW" than any other.

The hierarchy is created when you place the rule-pieces of the PSR together.

I thought you were trying to discuss RAW. Creating something by placing pieces of the rules together is 100% RAI, and there's no reason I have to accept your interpretation of the rules.

Is the "benefit of a specific feat" a unique topic? In my common sense yes.

And in my "common sense", i.e. opinion, it's not. It's part of a topic, just as an individual sentence in the feat's benefit section is part of a topic and not a topic in itself. And this is the root of our disagreement - you are insisting quite fervently that your opinion about what the rules mean is somehow official and other people have to accept it. In reality, it isn't and we don't. If you can't accept that, there's no point to continuing this discussion.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, it's the other meaning of RAI - rules as interpreted. Everything that isn't quotes from the text is an interpretation of the rules, and no reasonable interpretation has any more claim to being "correct" or "RAW" than any other.




I thought you were trying to discuss RAW. Creating something by placing pieces of the rules together is 100% RAI, and there's no reason I have to accept your interpretation of the rules.

Sure I get what you mean and it is really difficult to prove that as certain kind of reading is RAW.
But if the mechanic instructions lead to a hierarchy, does the outcome change by telling it to you beforehand or not? No, the mechanics still do it, even if the PSR doesn't obviously state it.

And in my "common sense", i.e. opinion, it's not. It's part of a topic, just as an individual sentence in the feat's benefit section is part of a topic and not a topic in itself. And this is the root of our disagreement - you are insisting quite fervently that your opinion about what the rules mean is somehow official and other people have to accept it. In reality, it isn't and we don't. If you can't accept that, there's no point to continuing this discussion.

The problem is, if no explicit instructions are given, you fall back to common sense. Since no limitations are given for what is and what is not a topic. You may not be picky here by RAW, that's the job of RAI. Anything that by real life standards could qualify as a topic fits here. Subtopics like the "Benefit:" section of a feat still qualify as a topic. Just being a subtopic doesn't change the outcome by RAW. It is still a topic.
If you ignore that "topic" is unrestricted here and start to be picky, you have left RAW for RAI. Because you added a limitation that is not mentioned there in any way. The burden of proof to provide rule text for that is on your side (if you want to claim that it is RAW and not RAI), not mine. You are still using the PSR, but with RAI in mind and not with RAW. Unless you can point me to a text passage that would justify your interpretation. If you can accomplish that, I can see if it changes my interpretation/point of view. But as long as you pick topics as you see it fit (without rule text to confirm your picks), it won't affect my RAW point of view.
Since the PSR is not picky on what is a topic, my interpretation is just doing fine in that regard.

_____

To prevent miscommunication:
Again, I have no problems with a RAI point of view. I sole have a problem when people seem to have difficulty to see when they have stopped using RAW arguments and are under the impression that they are still thinking RAW. I know it is not easy to see the tiny line between those two, but that is what makes it important/interesting to talk about it. ;)

[InvisibleBison]

Again, I have no problems with a RAI point of view. I sole have a problem when people seem to have difficulty to see when they have stopped using RAW arguments and are under the impression that they are still thinking RAW.

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.