Fun Finds v6.0

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

ever since WotC's 'playing with everything' article years ago

Linky?

Also using 3.0 psionics as well as 3.5 is interesting. Does anyone have a thread on how much of the 3.0 book is usable?

[Chemus]

ever since WotC's 'playing with everything' article years ago

Linky?

I tried the article archive from 2000-2005 and I don't find it. Either my mind is gone over to the far realms, or it was on the old forums. Sorry. I could just be all wet.

[snakeman830]

ever since WotC's 'playing with everything' article years ago

Linky?

Also using 3.0 psionics as well as 3.5 is interesting. Does anyone have a thread on how much of the 3.0 book is usable?

Pretty sure officialy, none of it is as the expanded psionics handbook was intended to be a full replacement.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Link might be findable here (idk what you're looking for).
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/retired

Generally anything that had a "www . wizards" address, is now
an "archive.wizards" address otherwise the same, but with no www.

I like mixing 3.0 and 3.5 psi.
3.0 Psion is automatically weaker than the 3.5 one.
3.0 PsyWar probably has a combo or two better than 3.5 PsyWar
... but wouldn't otherwise change the Tier at all.
Lots of deep C.O. history pseudo-lost down there in 3.0ville anything.
3.0 Soulknife prc makes more sense than the 3.5 base class,
however the Athas guys have a 3.5 soulknife prc, making it
into the semi-official to official grey zone.

[Unbeliever]

And the reason I used Extra Spell as an example;

Can the warmage (CAr) benefit from the Extra Spell feat?
No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list. Since the warmage already knows all the spells on his class spell list, this feat has no effect.

Is because I can plug more precedence in. Feat usage is based on how you meet requirements. It's not independent.

While I don't disagree with the arguments and examples above, the general statement "Feat usage ... It's not independent" doesn't follow from the example.  And, I can't recall any general statement along those lines.  Although it's fair to say that this is a kind of corner case. 

The Warmage issue is that the feat has no effect.  The Extra Spell adds something that the Warmage already has.*  But, consider instead a Warmage 3/Wizard 2.  He meets the prerequisite for the feat (Caster Level 3rd) by virtue of his Warmage levels.  But, he could take the feat to gain an extra Wizard spell, perhaps from some obscure source.  I don't see why he couldn't, and the general statement seems to exclude this. 

Not that this would come up very often -- it's crazily inefficient to burn a feat to gain access to what in this case would be a 0th level spell.  And, there aren't that many characters like this that have sort of split prereqs and effects of the feats in question.  Just usually feats, etc. that have a "tighter" (for lack of a better term) relationship with the prereq call it out specifically.  Contrast the Extra Spell example, with, e.g., Disembowelling Strike (Comp Scoundrel).  It has Weapon Focus (any slashing weapon) as a prereq and requires you to use that type of weapon to gain the benefit.


*Tangentially, but unless it's in some errata not readily googleable, the FAQ was simply adding in the " but the spell must be taken from your class spell list" to the feat's description.  I don't know if I think that's good practice for the FAQ to be doing.  In general, I would usually assume that is the case for a feat or ability, in line with SorO's ambiguity comments above.  But, the feat in Complete Arcane goes on to say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."  This is a far cry from the book coming out and saying "cherry pick spell lists at will" but restricting it to the class spell list not only makes the feat nigh useless, but begs the question how the quoted scenario would come up outside of very unusual circumstances:  a wizard is entitled to a few spells when they level up anyway. 

[SorO_Lost]

While I don't disagree with the arguments and examples above, the general statement "Feat usage ... It's not independent" doesn't follow from the example.  And, I can't recall any general statement along those lines.  Although it's fair to say that this is a kind of corner case. 

The Warmage issue is that the feat has no effect.  The Extra Spell adds something that the Warmage already has.*  But, consider instead a Warmage 3/Wizard 2.  He meets the prerequisite for the feat (Caster Level 3rd) by virtue of his Warmage levels.  But, he could take the feat to gain an extra Wizard spell, perhaps from some obscure source.  I don't see why he couldn't, and the general statement seems to exclude this.

It doesn't say the Warmage has not already dipped Cleric either now does it?
What it does say is "but the spell must be taken from your class spell list." which specifically ties it's usage to which Class you used to qualify for it. IE if taken by a Warmage only he chooses from his Warmage list, if a Sorcerer 2 / Warmage 6 takes it he can either take it per a 2nd level Sorcerer granting him a new 1st level Spell or as a 6th level Warmage (in which case it's worthless). In any case, the Feat it's self, like many others, do not out right say this. But the context and precedence is there and in other areas too. It's Wisdom vs Intelligence some might say, understanding of the rules vs knowing a select few words from one area and trying to assemble them without knowing how.

But, the feat in Complete Arcane goes on to say "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research."  This is a far cry from the book coming out and saying "cherry pick spell lists at will" but restricting it to the class spell list not only makes the feat nigh useless, but begs the question how the quoted scenario would come up outside of very unusual circumstances:  a wizard is entitled to a few spells when they level up anyway.

There are two things to consider here.

First is the meaning of research/access, your value (ANY spell!) vs book's quantify of what research is.

Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. These spells represent the results of her research. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.

The game assumes a Wizard continues research throughout his adventure as his theatrical excuse for play. People familiar with the unimaginative side assume a Wizard is magically gifted new Spells to alter time and change his shape for putting out a fire with a blanket. This is inaccurate and if someone cannot differentiate between flavor, mechanical rules, explanations, and reasons then how can they to be trusted to make accurate rulings?

Secondly, it's also the same concept again. It's nigh useless so why?! Is a very poor rebuttal for several reason, but specifically it skims over the fact that a lot of WotC content is worthless (toughness, virtually ever +2 skill feat, skill focus speak language, etc). This is a similar case with the Item Creation Feats and everyone trying to validate them beyond WBL when even the authors have outright said they were primarily printed as nothing more but an excuse to why magical items even exist in the first place. People have fallen for these traps and such and in turn offered their own fixes. I'm just as guilt as the rest favoring X/encounter vs X/day for abilities like smite evil. But you need to remember these fixes and changes born from opinions are house rules and homebrew, they need to be labeled as such as not to mislead other users reading the threads and never used as a rebuttal an official rules discussion.

And when in doubt, follow the DMG. If it's not in the rules, then that's a nope. It is the mindset that people should have started D&D with, but 2nd had very little rules and favored making stuff up and we inherited the last generation's problems and many without asking if we could do better. And now we're the old folks, two generations behind. Being a rules stickler with 3rd will help here, but does it honestly help else where?

[Unbeliever]

This is just a colloquy, we're not really debating anything here, but maybe something interesting will come out of it. 

There are two things to consider here.

First is the meaning of research/access, your value (ANY spell!) vs book's quantify of what research is.

Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. These spells represent the results of her research. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.

The game assumes a Wizard continues research throughout his adventure as his theatrical excuse for play. People familiar with the unimaginative side assume a Wizard is magically gifted new Spells to alter time and change his shape for putting out a fire with a blanket. This is inaccurate and if someone cannot differentiate between flavor, mechanical rules, explanations, and reasons then how can they to be trusted to make accurate rulings?

I don't know if I'd say the game designers are any better.  Just take the term you quoted.  The same term, "research" is also used to construct new, customized spells (see DMG page 198, "Researching Original Spells").  Further, what would it even mean to not be able to "research" in the PHB sense and not be given the 2 spells one receives from gaining a level in Wizard?  That's not a well-defined rules concept unless you are already using an optional rule (see, DMG page 198 "If you require wizards to actually spend game time on spell research to gain those new spells ..."). 

Even the FAQ's reading of Extra Spell involves reading out a whole sentence of the "Benefit" section, or 1/3 of it and rendering it fluff.  And, misleading fluff at that.  It might be, although it's odd fluff and it's even odder for it to be in the rulesy Benefit section of a feat. 

Even reading things in context doesn't resolve things in this instance, perhaps b/c the context itself is so inconsistent or vague. 

Likewise,

Secondly, it's also the same concept again. It's nigh useless so why?! Is a very poor rebuttal for several reason, but specifically it skims over the fact that a lot of WotC content is worthless (toughness, virtually ever +2 skill feat, skill focus speak language, etc). This is a similar case with the Item Creation Feats and everyone trying to validate them beyond WBL when even the authors have outright said they were primarily printed as nothing more but an excuse to why magical items even exist in the first place. People have fallen for these traps and such and in turn offered their own fixes. I'm just as guilt as the rest favoring X/encounter vs X/day for abilities like smite evil. But you need to remember these fixes and changes born from opinions are house rules and homebrew, they need to be labeled as such as not to mislead other users reading the threads and never used as a rebuttal an official rules discussion.

Really, you're just adopting one interpretive principle over another.  The idea of reading things so that they fit together the best or so that a section of the text isn't rendered useless or without effect is a well-established approach.  In law it's often labeled purposivism, and there's a few related canons of interpretation.

Keeping with the legal parlance, SorO is advocating a form of legislative history:  you are looking outside the text to statements by the authors of the text for clarification.  That's also a perfectly viable, though by no means unassailable, interpretive approach.  My only point here -- to the extent I have one -- is that it's an argument one is putting forward and by no means self-evident.  It's not even a question of being a stickler for the rules:  Posner and Scalia both believe they are following the rules, they just disagree about how to go about understanding them.

[TuggyNE]

Really, you're just adopting one interpretive principle over another.  The idea of reading things so that they fit together the best or so that a section of the text isn't rendered useless or without effect is a well-established approach.  In law it's often labeled purposivism, and there's a few related canons of interpretation.

It's refreshing to see someone taking rules lawyering seriously enough to pay attention to one of the several very-well-established fields that have already had to formally deal with the challenges of problematically-written or incomplete normative texts. Such as law, or my own limited studies in theology.
Too often I see rules arguments by people who, while certainly clever and fairly good at reasoning things out from first principles, are still reasoning things out from first principles on their own instead of working with what's already been done. The result is usually pretty messy.

From this, we derive two useful principles: don't reinvent the interpretive wheel, and don't expect TuggyNE to be more than faintly, tangentially relevant. 

[SorO_Lost]

I don't know if I'd say the game designers are any better.  Just take the term you quoted.  The same term, "research" is also used to construct new, customized spells (see DMG page 198, "Researching Original Spells").

You are talking about the DM-Required section that follows the Learning New Spells entry -- Which again reiterates sorcerers don't research new spells but presents optional rules for such, this is important in a second. -- Both of which fall under the proceeding topic header that says research isn't part of the standard rules. *cough* Yep another lead in *cough*

And you don't have to really read Extra Spell as fluff, it's ambiguous in the introduction and the sorcerer side. It's on the Wizard side the word research is thrown in, which has no value in the standard rules, and at that point the idea is already based on the Feat behaving based on the choosing a single Class to which the Feat will recognize and apply it's benefits to. The primary difference is the FAQ takes things to their full value (sic spell choice is also based on class) rather than reneging half-way through.

The idea of reading things so that they fit together the best or so that a section of the text isn't rendered useless or without effect is a well-established approach.  In law it's often labeled purposivism, and there's a few related canons of interpretation.

Actually FAQ entries and other examples establish precedents similar to case law. And in case law, all lower courts (sic random guys on a forum) must adhere to them. It's held to be of a stronger value than purposivism as well.

But yes, I like purposivism. And believe it or not the main reason draws back to both communication and motivation. I like having a lot of support for my ideas, that way I can pretend they are sound theories rather than baseless opinions and in order to use purposivism you have to use multiple citations.

[Unbeliever]

Thanks TuggyNE.  I freely admit that the analogy to legal principles is partly b/c that's what I'm familiar with.  The other analogy I've seen used is to computer code.  The law one seems truer to life, to me, though, b/c RPG rules have to be used and interpreted by people in a way that computer code does not.

@SorO
I don't really follow the comments regarding Extra Spell, but that's neither here nor there.  I don't really want to get too distracted by a discussion of precedent, it'd take us too far afield.  Farther than we already are. 

What strikes me as interesting here is whether citations to sources outside the rulebooks themselves add anything to a question about a rule.  I happen to find "rule A is better than rule B" a sufficient, and stronger, argument than the resort of an FAQ or game designer for authority.  But, this may be due to my general lack of faith in RPG designers combined with a sense that I know what will work at my tables better than they do.  Also, it's an argument by authority, and that's generally not great. 

Making the analogy to legislative history also makes me think that the hierarchy at play -- Game Designer > FAQ > random forum posts -- is not entirely obvious.  For example, there's a series of persuasive arguments that if Senator X voted to pass a given law, or even authored it, later statements she makes about the law are irrelevant.  Some of these would be relevant in the RPG design context, such as the idea that a given book is a collaborative work, so the final product is not just what Senator X (modulo Game Designer X) alone feels about it, but what the committee X, Y, and Z working together agreed upon.  Which is to say that X's statements about the product aren't even authoritative. 

The response, I think, and it might be a good one, is that the FAQ could have real expertise.  If they sit around all day and kick the tires on rules, then presumably they are really good at thinking about them and how they fit together in a coherent whole.  Something that even the game designers might not be doing.  When you are creating a new rule you're not (arguably) seeing how it operates "in the wild." 

[SorO_Lost]

What strikes me as interesting here is whether citations to sources outside the rulebooks themselves add anything to a question about a rule.

Instead of your Senator analogy, which does make sense since we both often consider them idiots, think of amendments.

You could consider the Core Rules to be a constitution, and by that I mean a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state (D&D) or other organization (the players) is acknowledged to be governed. Designer X, Y, & Z have signed off on it. It doesn't matter exactly what X thinks afterwards, he already gave his ok and it's been drafted and ratified. Then the governing body (wotc) wishes to alter the original documentation, wither by alteration, addition, or subtraction, afterwards. In this they are in charge of how they wish to do this and they have chosen a few methods.
* The first - because the subjects of the law will notice problems before the lawmakers will - is clarification and specific ruling by a person or committee that is recognized by the governing body to be a part of the legal system. It's often easy to place the FAQ in this category, I just did before, but we need to recall that the same subset of employee(s) were also in charge of the Ask Wizards, Ask the Sage, and email provided answers. Only some those entries made it into the FAQ and of the different types only the FAQ was listed within the top layer of the game rules. It is more equivocal of regulatory law than a judicial ruling.
* The second is error correction. If an editorial or printing mistake is found and usage of it would create more problems than if the mistake was admitted to then WotC issues an official "recall" of sorts and released a correction (errata). Some times the correction solves the issue, some times it don't. Like the standard hierarchy you need to use the laws present today and not ones printed years before. This one is the closest to the amendments you know, and like the 18th they are not immune to later updates.
* A third method is amendments or even redrafts of the constitution be it in parts or in whole. To the D&D rule structure this takes the form of rule updates provided in supplements, the rule's compendium, or recompilations that incorporate all know alterations (srd/reprint). The updates are often based upon prior adaptions being raised up into the main body, like some of the FAQ's rulings appear in the RC, but are consolidated and the words are streamlined without excuse or reason because they simply are.
WotC also provides a fourth option that isn't discussed very often. Rules of the Game was listed along side the FAQ, Errata, and the 3.5 Update on the original page (I don't know about now). These articles are less of a decisive ruling on a subject and more of a instruction of the rules by the original authors. It is positivism but since WotC asked for and hosts the content it is authoritative which makes it a directive.

Outside of the government, specifically here at Minmaxboards, we have a a policy in place by the host, moderators, and will of the people. One such pillar is adherence to the DM-less concept of the rules with exceptions issued to various concepts like all Items/Feats/PrCs/Campaign materials are fair game. Another is due recognition of houserules and DM rulings of the poster's game. These are not rules so to speak, but it is how we operate. For example, I don't think something that says you have to worship Shar really applies in Eberron-based game but we still suggest it in hopes of it being allowed. Another good example is pretending Monks are Proficient in Unarmed Strike (they probably are noted such somewhere, never dug).

The concept of rules is the debated part, as you would expect, with so many ideas and so many methods. I'm not going to reiterate what I've mentioned before, but having high standards for testing validity does ensure a more ideal outcome.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

 
(going to google:  purposivism)

I wouldn't write off the more ~theological arguments ... considering how belief-y people get with the rules, or Pun-pun as a for-instance.

CPsi has led to a permanent dissent (of sorts).

[SorO_Lost]

I wouldn't write off the more ~theological arguments ... considering how belief-y people get with the rules, or Pun-pun as a for-instance.

Really? Because in order to make sense of your post it's needed.

Purposivism fills in for bad communication skills and Pun-Pun isn't based on bad communication. This kind of harks back to a more recent thread asking for the definition of theoretical among the forum users rather than everyone agreeing on using English in the first place. Pun-pun is based on the hypothetical usage of a Sarrukh's Manipulate Form taken to infinite values. Simply using Manipulate Form to increase another creature's ability scores is a defined and intended usage and obtaining it, be it by ASA or MF passed, isn't TO either.

[Unbeliever]

Purposivism isn't just gap filling.  Well, any more than all judicial rulemaking is gap filling.  Really, all theories of statutory interpretation are there when the text is unclear in some fashion, they just debate about the sources one looks to to resolve the matter.  Purposivism is used for unanticipated circumstances, decentralized decisionmaking (i.e., the thing the common law is supposed to really give us a benefit from), and I'm sure there are other arguments that have been lost to the leaky ship of my memory.  Hell, now that I think about it, Dworkin probably fits, though he is kind of an island unto himself.

There's also always a tradeoff between parsimony and covering every circumstance with rules.  Meaning, in some sense there will always be gaps.  That's part of the enterprise.  Otherwise the rules (in RPGs, regulations, statutes, and so on) would be an unreadable nigh infinitely long mess.


EDIT:  besides that, I agree with SorO's above post.  And, am also likewise baffled by Awaken_DM_Golem's comment.

[SorO_Lost]

There's also always a tradeoff between parsimony and covering every circumstance with rules.  Meaning, in some sense there will always be gaps.  That's part of the enterprise.  Otherwise the rules (in RPGs, regulations, statutes, and so on) would be an unreadable nigh infinitely long mess.

I don't know about a mess or unreadable, MtG's rule's text is pretty nice, but certainly long and boring as hell through.

Dworkin also favored interpretivist which is different than positivism. Whereas positivism is based on clearing up ambiguity by reading the full law and attempting to find a context that it was written in. Interpretivism believes the law is entirely subjective with no separation of morality and the rules which allows it to ignore what it chooses based on it's definitions of morality.

[zook1shoe]

*cough* any good fun finds recently? 

[wotmaniac]

*cough* any good fun finds recently? 

Yeah, I found this fun little discussion about judicial interpretation.  Who knows how long it could go.

[SorO_Lost]

I think someone broke it.

So ummm... Mulhorandi Divine Minion lets you change into something with 11HD and a Beholder has 11HD. Coincidence or since the creature is none-SRD is it intended to be an OP combo for people that own a Monster Manual?

[zook1shoe]

And a few levels of Zhent Skymage could give you a beholder buddy w Mighty Steed?

so a beholder riding a beholder

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Yeah,  Druid 1 / Divine Minion +1 ... starting at level 2, Aberrant Wildshape and Assume Supernatural, is bonkerz.

I wouldn't write off the more ~theological arguments ... considering how belief-y people get with the rules, or Pun-pun as a for-instance.

Really? Because in order to make sense of your post(s) it's needed.

Fixed that for you