Author Topic: Maximized Reincarnate  (Read 16730 times)

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #60 on: May 01, 2012, 12:27:43 PM »
Okay, first things first. Dude. Chill. This isn't actually that big a deal.

I didn't dismiss your point on the basis of technical minutiae, I dismissed it on the grounds that you claimed you were using my logic to reach an absurd conclusion, and you weren't. My original claim, if you'll note, was that the rule was ambiguous. When your reasoning is, "This is clearly flavor text, because it uses the word "effectively", so it's not a specific rules term", it's pretty damn ambiguous, I can tell you that. I then stated my preferred interpretation, because that's what you do with ambiguous rules. Interpret them.

I agree that not every occurrence of a related or derived word is a reference to a particular similarly named rule; this is an occurrence of an exactly related word. Still, not even those are always references to that defined term. Authors slip up, and they usually have already defined the most general or widely useful terms, so it's an easy mistake to make. But even so, this is a situation in which applying that rules-defined term doesn't create any inconsistencies or require extra rules tacked on out of thin air (like, say, the Magic Mantle does, much to my eternal annoyance with its use). So saying it's not a use of that term is purely interpretation, not a necessarily rational conclusion. And that's fine, because it's an interpretation that doesn't create any inconsistencies and has a plausible reasoning that you've outlined, at great length and volume.

I've also made no claims about missed attacks or anything of that other stuff you brought up in the second post, in case that was directed at me. I don't think Captnq is right to any extent about how he reaches his conclusion, and I'm even making the same argument you are about "affects" vs "targets". I just happen to think one particular aspect of his conclusion, "You can't chain a reach spell" is coincidentally correct.

Offline Captnq

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
  • Haters gonna hate. Dragons gonna drag.
    • View Profile
    • Ask the Captain
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #61 on: May 01, 2012, 03:09:39 PM »
EDIT:  Also, that wish setup smacks of 'you put your hand in the statue's mouth, SPHERE OF ANNIHILATION HAHAHAHAH'.  I mean, it's wish, it's supposed to be like that, it's a gygaxian sacred cow, but extending that philosophy to other things (see; deciding reach + chain doesn't work, not because you don't think it's balanced/don't want that in your game/whatever, but because of a random use of a random word that you then decided was rulestext in such a way that screws your players, see; worrying about what's behind your target to the extent that you have a random table of where a ray goes if you miss + probably arrows or whatever) is directly the path of the 'read my mind about what is allowed and isn't allowed' DM, which I personally think is a fucking terrible way to go about creating a versimilitudinous world or game setting.

Well,

1. He went to a professional who said it wouldn't work. He wanted to try it anyways.
2. The players range from 27th to just reaching 30th right now. They want to mess around with reality for the fun of it, they take their chances.
3. I don't use random words. I use all words. As written. As a lawyer would view those words. Which is what I've done for over a decade. Once the rule is defined, I stick with it until:

A) WoTC corrects it in an errata
B) I receive proof that I'm wrong in another book. (Later printing overrides previous)
C) Case law: Show me an NPC with a chained Ray or a reach+chain touch spell in a Single WotC Published RPG Book.

Not a single player could find ONE example of a chained Ray or Reach+Touch spell actually used in play in any adventure anywhere.

But I will tell you what. If someone who is reading this goes, "HEY! I know of just the thing!" and pulls out Elminster from some what the fuck and he is merely DESCRIBED as using chain with a ray in a Actual. Gaming. Suppliment. I will bring it up with the players and discuss changing it.

You show me Blackstaff with reach/chained vampiric touch, then you got a done deal.

Heck, show me a chained acid splash from Pork The Goblin Wizard.

However, do not claim my methodology is 'random'. You may not like my law class style, but it's as lawful and organized as any system any other DM has put forth.

Let me explain something:

1. If it isn't written, it doesn't exist.
2. If it's written, almost every word exists in the dictionary. Look them up.
3. If a word is redefined in a document, it only applies to that document going forward.
4. A body of work is considered a single document. (ie WotC published books)
5. Punctuation kills. (ie Let's go clubbing, Baby Seals. Let's go clubbing baby seals.)
6. 'And' and 'Or' are not interchangeable.
7. There is the spirit of something, and what is actually written. I cannot read spirit. I must go with written. Spirit is decided in the part that isn't written by a judge. Then he writes it down.
8. Examples in writing are valid, if provided by the original author, or the organization that approved that author.
9. When two forms of writing contradict, whatever was written last, wins. (ie. I love bunnies. I hate bunnies. Guess what, you hate bunnies. You don't love and hate bunnies, you just hate bunnies)
10. Corrections are only retroactive up to the point where the original error was printed.

You may disagree with my conclusions, but do not mock my process. So tell me, do YOU have a process the Players can read already written down, or is it just in YOUR head?
If you have questions about 3.5 D&D, you might want to look at the:
Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis

Currently: Podcasting

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #62 on: May 01, 2012, 09:35:37 PM »
The Reach Spell feat does not say anything about changing the target line to "ray".  The spell will still have its original target line, but the range would be extended from touch to 30'.  "Effectively becomes a ray" is only expanded on by mentioning that it needs a ranged touch attack to hit its target, nothing more.  So, by RAW, it follows the same ranged touch attack rules that rays have, that's it.
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #63 on: May 02, 2012, 12:44:25 AM »
See, that seems like a reach to me. It's a plausible interpretation, sure, but it says that the touch attack is a consequence of it becoming effectively a ray (rather than the reverse, like "you need to make a touch attack, as if it were a ray", which would inarguably mean what you're interpreting the feat to mean). I'm just saying that that isn't the only possible way to read it, and it's not as simple as "that's it". It really comes down to whether you'd prefer to have Chain or Split Ray applied to your Reach spells since those two seem to be the only scenarios where it could conceivably matter.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #64 on: May 02, 2012, 02:29:34 AM »
Effectively a ray is not the same as saying the spell is a ray and uses the rules for rays.  Any time a spell is a 'ray' (or a cone, or a burst, or whatever the fuck) it's spelled out specifically in the rules that that is what it is.  Being a ray means it can be blocked by cover and whatever the fuck else.  Gets deflected by Ray Deflection.  It's an entirely different rule set to 'requiring a ranged attack', which spells which are NOT RAYS can require.  It's fucking RARE, but it happens.  Although not THAT rare, given, y'know, Melf's Fucking Acid Arrow.


I also do not see how the Complete Arcane version of Chain Spell can't chain rays.  Ray of Frost is a ranged spell (check) that targets a single target (check).  Why I cannot chain it through a 3rd level spell slot I do not know.


As for the specific fucking wording, speaking of dictionary definitions, go and look up what the word 'ray' means.  A ray travels in a straight line.  So does this spell.  So you need to aim it.  That is what they were saying.  They weren't saying you can use the Split Ray feat on it.  They weren't saying you can spellwarp snipe it.  They weren't saying you can use it for sneak attacks like a weaponlike spell.  They weren't saying you can use Ray Coning to turn it into a cone.  They weren't saying Ray Deflection deflects your fucking Cure Light Wounds.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #65 on: May 02, 2012, 02:59:31 AM »
I just read several Ray spells in the PHB (Polar Ray, Ray of Exhaustion, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Frost).  Though none have a target line, they all say that you must succeed on a ranged touch attack to affect/damage "a target".  That sounds like a "spell that specifies a single target" to me.

So unless you are going to try to argue that "target" doesn't mean "target" in this context, it sounds like you can chain rays, too, so long as they only affect one target (I'm looking at you, Scorching Ray!)
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #66 on: May 02, 2012, 07:31:58 AM »
SRD under "Aiming a Spell"
(click to show/hide)

By default a Ray has no target. Though, as always, specific may override general for individual spells. Reach Spell however lacks such specificity. In fact it goes out of its way to say "recipient" instead of target.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 07:36:19 AM by skydragonknight »
One cut, one kill.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #67 on: May 02, 2012, 07:47:02 AM »
So you are arguing that "target" doesn't mean "target".  Does Chain Spell specify that the spell must have a target line, then?  No.  Therefore, so long as the spell has a "target", it can be applied.  Besides, you can also look up "target" in the glossary of the PHB, p. 314.  There, it defines "target" as "the recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect."  Sounds like what a ray would hit....
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2012, 08:17:03 AM »
Please quote the text when you talk about it.
Ahem...

Quote from: PHB p. 314
target: the intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell.

So a spell with a target is a targeted spell. We can agree on this, right? It uses the term "targeted spell" in the definition of target.

Quote from: Ray
Ray

Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.

If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.

If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

A ray is not a "targeted spell" because of the bolded line. So it doesn't have a target, since by definition spells with targets are "targeted spells", the contrapositive "spells that aren't targeted spells don't have a target" must also be true.

So rays by default are not targeted spells. They are magical effects aimed in a specific direction - typically at a target, but the spell itself only creates the effect of the ray (read the definition of a ray - it's a spell that creates an effect and not a targeted spell).  Just like you could summon a brick over someone's head: they're not the target of the spell, they're the target of the effect. And all ray spells do is create a ray effect which can be aimed. Don't ask me why. That's just how its written.

Edit: this is about default rays. An individual ray spell may state somewhere something about a target, and I'd be cool with it. But I'm only doing the general case here.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 08:23:15 AM by skydragonknight »
One cut, one kill.

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2012, 12:00:27 PM »
And Reach Spell doesn't call out that the spell in question retains a target.

We actually are debating rules minutiae, here, as anybody can tell from the fact that the difference between "affect" and "target" has been brought up. I don't see what's so different about agreeing that the word "ray" does have a specific in-game definition, just as "target" does. You can target an enemy with a fireball (in the non-technical sense of the word), but that doesn't mean your fireball has a target (in the technical sense of the word). It's plausible to claim that they intended only to use the general, non-game definition of the word "ray" (WotC was notoriously bad at separating flavor text from mechanics, even moreso in Core), but it's not the One True RAW to insist on it.

And the use of "effectively" doesn't stop that from being true. It would need supplementary language to do that. For instance, if they'd said, "The spell effectively becomes a ray for the purposes of touching your target, so you need to make a ranged touch attack to hit," I'd be totally with you on that. They didn't. They made a general statement, and one that does specifically call it out as being a ray (effectively), and pointed out a single consequence thereof.

EDIT: This edit is all about trivial rules that have nothing to do with your actual argument. Ray Deflection works on all touch attacks, so it actually would work on a Reach Spell. Also, I dearly hope never to see a player cast Melf's Fucking Acid Arrow. That just sounds cruel.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 12:04:17 PM by Bauglir »

Offline Saxony

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2012, 07:34:21 PM »
Please let this thread die.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2012, 10:12:58 PM »
Wow, so you're arguing two incomplete definitions as an argument.

'effectively a ray' and 'you don't need to see the target as you do with targeted spells'.

That text under ray doesn't specifically modify the target line or even SAY that rays can't have specific targets or even that rays can't be targeted spells.  It only says that targeted spells are different (in terms of LINE OF SIGHT) to rays.

Yeah, the sloppy wording lets you assume things that aren't supported by the text.  Doesn't mean that doing so is the most logical conclusion of either the intent or the wording.  You want to talk about case law?  Then look at all the other 'cases' of the definition of rules terms and apply them to the wording in the two feats.

You'll find pretty fucking quickly that in ALL OTHER CASES it's explicitly spelled out if a spell, y'know, suddenly becomes a cone or something.  And that descriptive words like 'like' and 'effectively' and 'as if' are nearly always examples of in-game effects, fluff, interaction with non-tangent effects.. whatever.

There is not even a SKERRIK of proof that changing the range of a spell or it being described as 'effectively a ray' in any way changes the target line.  There is no proof that rays can't have target lines.  Nearly all written rays don't have target lines/targetting, but that proves what, exactly?  This argument is the worst ass-backwards DM vs players rule-lawyering that gives a bad name to rule lawyering i've ever fucking seen in my life.  I don't even know what the 'spirit' of the rules in this instance is, but you're fucking twisting the rules as written through every conceivable fucking hoop and drawing allusions based on 2 vague fucking sentences that mean absolutely nothing and don't even fit with the style of the rest of the rules text in the actual fucking source you're drawing it from.

If you want to ban reach spell + chain spell, fucking ban it.  Don't go 'the rules say it can't happen' when the 'rules' you're working from are two fucking completely vague sentences that at best MAYBE SORT OF IMPLY what you're saying while the MUCH more logical fucking option is that they're talking about something else completely.  Under NO POSSIBLE READING (not reading it as legal jargon, not reading it as logic, not reading it as common sense, reading it as spirit of the rules.. fucked if I know, the designers probably intended you to use it on fucking healing spells) is it the most logical conclusion to take from the actual words themselves, so you're just perverting the meaning of the damn thing to your own fucking agenda which is just so insanely intellectually dishonest I don't even know how to describe it. 

Normally I can find where other people are coming from relatively easily, see their arguments, try to figure out who is correct.. but this fucking gygaxian 'hur dur screw over the players by legal loopholes that don't even actually exist' bullshit is just fucked.  And relying on examples when people at WotC/paizo write fucking NPCs whose idea of metamagic is empowered fireball (omg, munchkin!) and who routinely get basic math wrong on both the sheet and mechanics (not to mention the examples all being FR lore bullshit... glad to see that the stereotype/golden fucking truth of dickhead gygaxian DMs being huge FR fans holds true in every goddamn example i've seen to date) leads me to distrust the idea that any statblock ever printed would use even minor CO tricks, or even anything other than fucking Combat Casting (because it's easy).  Anything complicated is unlikely to ever appear because DMs won't know how to use it - they write it in as a special ability with clear limited rules, because a lot of the time people using published adventures aren't too hot on rules either, much less metamagic stacking or paradigm breaking. 

Anyway, i'm done with this, if that's seriously your actual argument then you've already sailed past the horizon of rationality, for whatever reason, so i'm not going to bother continuing to try to argue this point.

Offline Kethrian

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2183
  • Night Owl
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2012, 10:24:26 PM »
Yeah, if you're going to tell me that a target is not a target, and that rays do not have targets, even though you have not mentioned a single ray spell that does not contain the word 'target' in it, then there is no point in talking to you.
What do I win?
An awesome-five for mentioning Penny Arcade's On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness.

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2012, 12:22:10 AM »
Agreed. We're at a point where both sides are unable to express our arguments in a way that makes sense to the other as even a concept to object to coherently, and continuing the discussion any further would make everyone involved stupider than we already are.

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2012, 02:22:03 AM »
Me? I don't have a horse in this. I'm just trying to see whether there's a case for the weaker side, since that's how I operate. I found the part that kills it though - while there may be no part of the ray definition that states it has a target (even suggests the contrary by saying it isn't a targeted spell), it does classify it as a ranged attack. And ranged attacks do have targets as far as I can tell (there's a Rules of the Game article on it, which mentions the word "target" a LOT).

So yeah, I'll surrender this case until I find another thread where I feel like helping the underdog. I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.
One cut, one kill.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2012, 03:27:43 AM »
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

 :clap :lol :lmao
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #76 on: May 04, 2012, 10:00:52 AM »
Being sarcastic > having a point.

Mentioning underdog, because everyone likes the underdog > having a point.

Oh wait, your point is that you're mr super awesome amurrica thread police awesomesauce, and i'm rude.

I'd prefer to be rude and have an actual argument and point any day of the fucking (EDIT: oh dear the childrens) week.

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #77 on: May 04, 2012, 11:59:31 AM »
I would like to request that this thread be locked. It has served its purpose. I have admitted defeat (something rare on the internet) but I'll have to pass on the chest-beating contest. ^_^ I learned a few things from this debate, so it was helpful - at least to me - but a contest of personalities would do nothing to further CO knowledge whatsoever and would serve not even the slightest purpose for this community.
One cut, one kill.

Offline Agita

  • He Who Lurks
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2704
  • *stare*
    • View Profile
Re: Maximized Reincarnate
« Reply #78 on: May 08, 2012, 01:57:38 AM »
Locking the thread doesn't feel necessary at this point, but the Reach/Chain debate should be moved to a new thread if people still want to continue. If not, simply letting the thread die is the mature thing to do.
Please send private messages regarding board matters to Forum Staff instead.