Is Warlock broken?

[kitep]

Well, since this thread has already gone off the rails, it's time to let the OP know that

Warlocks are too anime and overpowered

[SorO_Lost]

(click to show/hide)

So yeah, remember how I said "the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated"?  This is what I was talking about.

You can also find people willing to argue the Earth is flat. Just because you got two of our biggest trolls to argue so you can squeeze some semantics through doesn't make your claim right and it sure doesn't mean you get to hold your head high like you won something.

Fact of the matter is it's a long consistent problem in our board primarily brought on by you and it needs addressed. Certain posters here with a large number on the left hand side have a very deep rooted personal and never-justified bias concerning the FAQ creates an undertone of uncertainty that prompts newer members to ask relativity simply questions that the official rule base has already taken the time out to clarify rather than getting into the better practice of quick checking a select few key sources. But out of them, you're the only one to jump into every single thread you can to bash the FAQ every single time it comes up.

Further more, your two rulings stance directly stems from continuing to ignore the FAQ which teaches bad rule delegation. And perhaps you've never raised a kid, never jailed an inmate, dealt with a fucking moron, or dealt with a guy named Linklord on the MMX boards. But if you introduce the precedent that if you do not like a part of the rules, be it because it wasn't sold for $29.99 at Borders or because there is an uncitable section you disagree with, you can simply ignore it then the fall it leads to the other end of the spectrum with people like Eggy and Kealik who just argue every thing they can because if you can ignore something for year and get away with it then they can too.

And then there is the tertiary damage which cannot be measured yet. Xelights posted a simply question and got a very quick correct answer by one of our younger members. A give and take of new members that should be encouraged. But instead you had to jump in here and push your bullshit onto them which brought the bandwagon of morons behind me which includes one very foul mouthed individual who inarguable disgraces every thread he touches. And the other, even after something is explained to him three or four times he still can't grasp the concept (srsly post #13 he thinks I'm saying the FAQ replaces the RC, I don't even know how the hell you could get to that point but he did). So in the case of Xelights, will knowing a simply question and cause a thread to explode into a flamewar continue to ask his questions here?

You're not helpful Link. Not in the least bit, and as much as you want to blame everyone else you have been the initiation factor for these debates in new threads with newer people time and time and time again. I could, and probably will, beat your ass in yet another FAQ thread if you like and you can go crying home to your mama bitter for the rest of your life if that's really what you want. But you need to stop carrying your disgusting baggage into threads. People are not coming into D&D 3.5 from nothing, they are coming into it from D&D 5th, 4th, and PF, all of which directly and indisputably hard canonized their FAQ entries because the product makers realized they were not forceful enough in 3rd and it cost them time, effort, and negative views due to literately the people that you are a part of.

Grow the hell up, it's time to move on.

Well, since this thread has already gone off the rails, it's time to let the OP know that
Warlocks are too anime and overpowered

Can't forget those eastern kung fu monks, western Christianity crusaders, magical hackers, steampunk golems, and the silly typecast that all rogues are thieves that'll stab you in the back. 

[Chemus]

1. NineinchNall may be 'new' to the board, but not to CO

2. OP specifically asked about whether FAQ superseded rulings, and Link's answer was quite even-handed. Your rant regarding systems whose rules are primarily administered online rather than via the rulebooks+errata show that even you recognize that WoTC doesn't call FAQ rules.

Just because you think that things should be done a certain way, does not mean that they are done that way.

[Kaelik]

Just because you got two of our biggest trolls to argue so you can squeeze some semantics through doesn't make your claim right and it sure doesn't mean you get to hold your head high like you won something. . . Certain posters here with a large number on the left hand side have a very deep rooted personal and never-justified bias concerning the FAQ creates an undertone of uncertainty that prompts newer members to ask relativity simply questions that the official rule base has already taken the time out to clarify rather than getting into the better practice of quick checking a select few key sources. But out of them, you're the only one to jump into every single thread you can to bash the FAQ every single time it comes up. . . And perhaps you've never raised a kid, never jailed an inmate, dealt with a fucking moron, or dealt with a guy named Linklord on the MMX boards. But if you introduce the precedent that if you do not like a part of the rules, be it because it wasn't sold for $29.99 at Borders or because there is an uncitable section you disagree with, you can simply ignore it then the fall it leads to the other end of the spectrum with people like Eggy and Kealik who just argue every thing they can because if you can ignore something for year and get away with it then they can too. . . But instead you had to jump in here and push your bullshit onto them which brought the bandwagon of morons behind me which includes one very foul mouthed individual who inarguable disgraces every thread he touches. And the other, even after something is explained to him three or four times he still can't grasp the concept (srsly post #13 he thinks I'm saying the FAQ replaces the RC, I don't even know how the hell you could get to that point but he did). . . I could, and probably will, beat your ass in yet another FAQ thread if you like and you can go crying home to your mama bitter for the rest of your life if that's really what you want. But you need to stop carrying your disgusting baggage into threads. . . Grow the hell up, it's time to move on.

Still being that mature, not foul mouthed, never ad hominem user who doesn't carry baggage around into threads I see.

[eggynack]

But if you introduce the precedent that if you do not like a part of the rules, be it because it wasn't sold for $29.99 at Borders or because there is an uncitable section you disagree with, you can simply ignore it then the fall it leads to the other end of the spectrum with people like Eggy and Kealik who just argue every thing they can because if you can ignore something for year and get away with it then they can too.

So, I post a few sentences questioning your claims, and you counter with a pile of hyper-aggressive massive paragraphs, and I'm the one who turns everything into crazy arguments. To be perfectly clear here, there is an established and simple perspective on this stuff that would allow us to bypass these stupid FAQ arguments. That being that it's decidedly unclear and controversial whether the FAQ qualifies as a source of rules. People on neither side come away perfectly happy, but it means that those who support the FAQ can rule things in keeping with that source, and those on the opposite side can rule things in the opposite way, and neither side will consider the other RAW, but we can all live our lives in peace.

And that, in a nutshell, is what Link was doing, saying the FAQ is contentious and that the things it's saying might not be RAW. Then you came in and insisted that the rules absolutely and unambiguously point in a direction that they definitely don't absolutely and unambiguously point to, forcing anyone who takes the opposite side to start arguing or otherwise let your very much not universally held view become the established perspective of the thread. By breaking up this tentative and fragile peace formed of agreement to disagree, and by yelling at everyone on the opposite side, you were the one arguing everything and derailing the thread. You may see yourself instead as some holy bastion of truth, saying things that are protected from the idea of arguing for arguing's sake by the idea that you're 100% right, but jeez man, everyone does. It's not like everyone but you is arguing in bad faith. We people on the other side of the internet aren't just empty troll-shells, doing all things due to some weird ulterior motive. I don't doubt that some people are, but there is in no way a 1:1 correspondence between people that claim to disagree with you and people who are lying.

And the other, even after something is explained to him three or four times he still can't grasp the concept (srsly post #13 he thinks I'm saying the FAQ replaces the RC, I don't even know how the hell you could get to that point but he did).

You cited the rules compendium text that seemed to indicate that said RC text was adopting the role of "exception" in the specific/general rules, and were implying that the FAQ also takes that position. I'm not saying that the FAQ replaces the RC. I'm saying it takes its place in an analogous sense in that text. So, you transform the text from, "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein (herein being the rules compendium)," to, "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein (herein being the FAQ)." Both sources still exist, and as separate entities, but the core claim seems to be that the FAQ is taking the role that the RC does. Not supplanting it, but also having it. My meaning in that post seems really clear from context.

[SorO_Lost]

that even you recognize that WoTC doesn't call FAQ rules.

Funny, I click on 3.5's Game Rule Page and there the FAQ is, listed right beside the Update Booklet, Rules Of The Game, and the Errata. In fact, during the website update the FAQ/Errata were listed on the same temporary page for about six months until their separate pages were restored. The FAQ is an inherent part of the rule structure and your concern with a lack of in-PDF self assignment is nothing more than a petty, and arbitrary, personal requirement. WotC's position on the matter is clear and it is the one and only one that matters.

In other words, just because you think things should be pointless argued, does not mean we need waste our time.

Still being that mature, not foul mouthed, never ad hominem user who doesn't carry baggage around into threads I see.

Still not seeing any rebuttals, just more ad hominem.

I'm the one who turns everything into crazy arguments.

Yes.
You.
Do.
It's actually what drives me nuts when dealing with you. I mean I directly called out your thought of FAQ replaces RC being wrong and not even close to what I said and you still go on to say.

You cited the rules compendium text that seemed to indicate that said RC text was adopting the role of "exception" in the specific/general rules, and were implying that the FAQ also takes that position

No. I wasn't then and no I'm still not, and you still haven't ever read or tried to understand the first or even second post. *sigh*

And it's not just me, I've watched you do it to other people. You always change what someone says and then argue against what you claimed they said. It's like watching a politician answer a question, they always rephase the question into something else before answering it. They do this on purpose to take control of the question so they can give an indirect answer that typically comes back to one of their sales pitches for their campaign. And you do that, to well as near as I can tell is to intentionally argue a strawman and piss away everyone's time.

[Samwise]

2. OP specifically asked about whether FAQ superseded rulings, and Link's answer was quite even-handed. Your rant regarding systems whose rules are primarily administered online rather than via the rulebooks+errata show that even you recognize that WoTC doesn't call FAQ rules.

While WotC doesn't call the FAQ rules, it should be noted why they don't, and keep that in mind for perspective.

[SorO_Lost]

While WotC doesn't call the FAQ rules, it should be noted why they don't, and keep that in mind for perspective.

Why probably opens another giant can of worms of speculation that runs pretty deep.

Like the ECS doesn't even call it's self a rule book but uses the standard "game rule information" or w/e header before introducing the Artificer. So does that mean we are to illogically assume Eberron doesn't exist because it's not in the rules even through the Artificer does? A lot of supplements are like that too, MM3 calls it's self a book that contains creatures to use, Complete Champion is also simply a "book" but it's a book that claims what your character believes and how she practices a religion aren't aspects of the character that rulebooks should dictate which the PHB's Cleric entry certainly says otherwise and stuff like Deities & Demigods, Book of Exalted Deed & Vile Darkness, and the Elder Evils supplements are pretty much built around doing. The FAQ not saying "this is a rulebook" in bold print is literally the least concerning element when you start going down this path.

Generally, there is no part of D&D that holds up under a microscope or in a vacuum. It is only in the comprehensive whole, and by adjudicating the rules in their entirety according to the system's ideals, can you offer up logically correct conclusions.

[Kaelik]

Still being that mature, not foul mouthed, never ad hominem user who doesn't carry baggage around into threads I see.

Still not seeing any rebuttals, just more ad hominem.

How am I supposed to rebut anything when you don't make any arguments? I made an argument, you refused to address it in any way and went on a long screed about how everyone but you is an asshole. I can't help it that every insult you leveled at anyone else clearly fits you better, just as soon as you present any argument at all I'll rebut it.

[eggynack]

Yes.
You.
Do.

I do tend to be argumentative, but I really don't think I'm the one that incited this whole thing, and neither did Link or Kaelik for that matter. From what I can see, you were the prime inciting factor.

It's actually what drives me nuts when dealing with you. I mean I directly called out your thought of FAQ replaces RC being wrong and not even close to what I said and you still go on to say.

You cited the rules compendium text that seemed to indicate that said RC text was adopting the role of "exception" in the specific/general rules, and were implying that the FAQ also takes that position

No. I wasn't then and no I'm still not, and you still haven't ever read or tried to understand the first or even second post. *sigh*

And it's not just me, I've watched you do it to other people. You always change what someone says and then argue against what you claimed they said. It's like watching a politician answer a question, they always rephase the question into something else before answering it. They do this on purpose to take control of the question so they can give an indirect answer that typically comes back to one of their sales pitches for their campaign. And you do that, to well as near as I can tell is to intentionally argue a strawman and piss away everyone's time.

I disagree with the claim that that's what's happening. You just communicate in a really weird way. That second post of yours in this thread is practically the only source of explanation for what your point is in the first place, and the underlying grammar and structure of the thing is a complete mess. Just look at this thing: "The FAQ is inherently part of the rules structure and the rule priority it has, trumping even the original entries, while implied is even more important directly called out through it's entries being specific rulings of interactions was granted to it by the Rules Compendium." It's just this giant loopy sentence that is missing really critical commas, ones that're pretty important for clarity. And that's really all you've said in support of your argument. Your third post has a bit of clarification hidden among the insults, your fourth just insists that you're right and have explained this stuff, and now we're on the fifth post, and we're finally getting any evidence at all in support of your claim that this is part of the inherent rules structure.

Point being, piecing together your argument from in between all the insults and insistence on correctness is a difficult task, and one made more difficult by how aggressive you are to anyone not on your side. You're clearly drawing some analogy between what the rules compendium is doing and what the FAQ is doing, but the evidence of that analogy's truth, what specific analogy it is, and how much that analogy should inform our understanding of the FAQ as rules or not rules, is unclear.

That being said, I feel like questioning and interpreting the specifics of your views isn't getting me anywhere. So, direct approach. The rules compendium isn't a source of rulings. It's a source of rules. To quote the text directly, " It updates... the rules." That means that, even if there's an unambiguous thing in the rules, it'll still get overwritten by the RC. Also, the title. It's a compendium of rules, not rulings. So, I can say, "Rulings are not rules, and thus should be ignored," and not contradict the fact that the RC overwrites the rules at all. This is the part where your link to the source of the FAQ comes into play. Because, yes, the FAQ is absolutely an official thing, but it is still a source of rulings at best, rather than an actual rules source.

[Kaelik]

I just want to know whether he thinks Hold Person takes away your actions.

[Samwise]

Why probably opens another giant can of worms of speculation that runs pretty deep.

For me it doesn't, as I heard it directly from WotC designers.
The answer is very simple: If the FAQ were rules, it would be errata, and lots of errata is bad, being seen as an overt admission of incompetence in writing and/or editing.

Indeed this goes back to something "everyone" knew as admitted by WotC designers, that they despise errata so much they have gone so far as to canonize simple typo. The "thoul" from BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia D&D exists solely because someone misspelled "ghoul" one time, and it wasn't caught until it went out in a product.

The FAQ is stealth, errata plain and simple.

[SorO_Lost]

The answer is very simple: If the FAQ were rules, it would be errata, and lots of errata is bad, being seen as an overt admission of incompetence in writing and/or editing.

You may have just presented a conspiracy theory over 339's deletion given the user base's fascination with listing every mistake they could find towards the end. 

The FAQ is stealth, errata plain and simple.

All rule updates are a form of stealth errata.

@Eggy, communication involves two people and , the,, number, of, commas,, contained, in, this,, sentence, won't, change,, it's, meaning. If you are having problems understanding someone that correct action to to repeat back what they said asking for clarification on it.

[eggynack]

@Eggy, communication involves two people and , the,, number, of, commas,, contained, in, this,, sentence, won't, change,, it's, meaning. If you are having problems understanding someone that correct action to to repeat back what they said asking for clarification on it.

Comma placement tends to have more meaning altering placement when the commas are missing than when the commas are excessive. And it can absolutely alter meaning. The whole sentence just becomes a weird meaning blob, especially when the underlying meaning of the sentence assuming good grammar is in question.  And, y'know, when someone misinterprets what you've said, as you claim I did, that's probably the place to start clarifying. It's not like I didn't read your post, so obviously I'm just not understanding some element of it. Anyway, you seem to think that that text in the RC gives the FAQ some form of precedence. How? Clarify for me.

[Kaelik]

How? Clarify for me.

He thinks the FAQ are specific rules. So he thinks the line "more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." means that the FAQ always overrides all other rules.

When other people point out that the entire contentious point is that he has no evidence the FAQ are rules in the first place, that's when he resorts to insulting people because he has no argument.

I still want to know whether he thinks Hold Person takes away a person's actions. Since no one could ever find any rule debatable, this should be really easy for him. I can't wait to find out which is more specific, the FAQ entry on Freedom of Movement, the first sentence of hold person, the second sentence of hold person, or the fourth sentence of hold person. Obviously since this isn't debatable at all because the there is no such thing as debatable rules, this should be easy, and whatever answer he gives definitely won't contradict his previous claims.

[eggynack]

He thinks the FAQ are specific rules. So he thinks the line "more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." means that the FAQ always overrides all other rules.

When other people point out that the entire contentious point is that he has no evidence the FAQ are rules in the first place, that's when he resorts to insulting people because he has no argument.

Maybe. That's not all that far away from what I thought his stance was, but I'd like to hear his statement of his position, because we're dealing so much here with claimed misstatements of stance.

As for the claim that communication involves two people, that's true up to a point, but I think a lot more of the onus is on the communicator to be clear than on the listener to pick out meaning. While everyone in a conversation has incentive to understand what everyone else is saying, such that they get the discussion closer to truth, the person communicating their points has the greatest vested interest in those points being understood. To put it simply, if you don't care enough about what you're saying to say it with proper and unambiguous language, then why would you expect others to care enough about what you're saying to take the time to unscramble your language? I don't see why you wouldn't want to give yourself the best modifier possible when trying to be understood.

[Kaelik]

He thinks the FAQ are specific rules. So he thinks the line "more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." means that the FAQ always overrides all other rules.

When other people point out that the entire contentious point is that he has no evidence the FAQ are rules in the first place, that's when he resorts to insulting people because he has no argument.

Maybe. That's not all that far away from what I thought his stance was, but I'd like to hear his statement of his position, because we're dealing so much here with claimed misstatements of stance.

As for the claim that communication involves two people, that's true up to a point, but I think a lot more of the onus is on the communicator to be clear than on the listener to pick out meaning. While everyone in a conversation has incentive to understand what everyone else is saying, such that they get the discussion closer to truth, the person communicating their points has the greatest vested interest in those points being understood. To put it simply, if you don't care enough about what you're saying to say it with proper and unambiguous language, then why would you expect others to care enough about what you're saying to take the time to unscramble your language? I don't see why you wouldn't want to give yourself the best modifier possible when trying to be understood.

Don't get me wrong, his problems are all on him. I couldn't possibly have told you that was his stance with any certainty when he first made it, partially because he wrote a pile of gobblygook masquerading as words, and partially because it's an argument that completely ignores the primary complaint against his position, and why would anyone even bother to write that? I can only be sure because of his subsequent posts yelling about how everyone is a bad meany who lies about what he says that occasionally slightly narrow down his point by accident.

[SorO_Lost]

Anyway, you seem to think that that text in the RC gives the FAQ some form of precedence. How? Clarify for me.

I already have. Let's restart on you're problem you introduced last post. Rulings vs rules, is there a difference? I bring this up because you clearly believe there is a difference and that difference is so important that you are allowed to ignore one of them because of it.

Breaking it apart, if you assert rulings as less than rules & the FAQ is a book of rulings as two points in an argument you still have to prove both of those things, and the first part is fairly hard given how legal systems often resort to rulings over rules. Further even if both are taken as true, the conclusion of claiming "Rules>FAQ" is incorrect.

And the reason is simply because of fallacies. Fallacies are simply an incorrect assumption in logic, they are many ways to do this with varying degrees of stupidity tied to them so they are a lot of different types of fallacies but the name is entirely irrelevant. Simply posed, if a ruling is included in the rules does the ruling become a rule? Logically speaking, yes it does. If something is included in something that it is also a part of it. WotC treats the FAQ as part of the integral rule structure that makes of the category of "game rules". Not the rules of Eberron, not the rules of Undead, not the three books that make up the "core rules", but part of the game's rules. To WotC, the FAQ's rulings are rules. And this is why even if you call up two separate things posed as facts, the FAQ is rulings & rulings<rules, you cannot say "Rules>FAQ". According to WotC, FAQ is equal to the rules and not less than them.

Still with me? Probably not, but if you cannot grasp the fundamentals you'll never move on.

[eggynack]

I already have.

Either you think I understand your claim in this area, in which case, sure, don't clarify, or you think I don't understand it, in which case you should clarify your point. Or, third option, you don't think you need that element to make your argument hold, in which case it doesn't matter if I understand this aspect. It's up to you, really, but your decision shouldn't really depend on whether you think you've already made any sort of clarification.

Breaking it apart, if you assert rulings as less than rules & the FAQ is a book of rulings as two points in an argument you still have to prove both of those things, and the first part is fairly hard given how legal systems often resort to rulings over rules. Further even if both are taken as true, the conclusion of claiming "Rules>FAQ" is incorrect.

I think the latter premise, that the FAQ is a source of rulings, is pretty easy to show. It's a source that seeks to answer questions about the text, and that directly lines up with the definition of a ruling. I'm not really sure why you'd think the conclusion assuming those premises could possibly be wrong, given that it just follows by simple logic. So, that'd only leave the first premise as important to cover, and it is, as you've correctly pointed out, the hardest to prove. So I'll move into your next paragraph, where you make your claim regarding that premise, and attempt to prove it there.

Simply posed, if a ruling is included in the rules does the ruling become a rule? Logically speaking, yes it does.

Maybe. But these rulings aren't technically included in the rules themselves, but rather in a secondary source that only contains rulings. And, as a secondary source, the FAQ falls afoul of the primary source rules. Particularly, that, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." So, either the FAQ is a source of rules, in which case it loses any fight with a primary source, or it's not a source of rules, in which case it's obviously not a source of rules, and we can ignore it.

WotC treats the FAQ as part of the integral rule structure that makes of the category of "game rules". Not the rules of Eberron, not the rules of Undead, not the three books that make up the "core rules", but part of the game's rules. To WotC, the FAQ's rulings are rules. And this is why even if you call up two separate things posed as facts, the FAQ is rulings & rulings<rules, you cannot say "Rules>FAQ". According to WotC, FAQ is equal to the rules and not less than them.

I disagree. WotC does not treat the FAQ as game rules. Yes, the web page with the FAQ has "game rules" in it, but if you read further by a single word, then it's clear that these are frequently asked questions about the game rules, rather than game rules themselves. If that header just got lopped off the FAQ, then you'd get, "Official D&D Game Rule Update," and that'd support your point way more, but what we actually have there does not indicate that WotC thinks of these as rules. And, considered further, I do not know of a source that indicates that WotC considers the FAQ a source of rules. You keep saying, "According to WotC," and stuff of that nature, but you don't seem to have a citation supporting that language, and you really need one.

[eggynack]

Well, that was annoying. Really wish I knew how to delete posts hereabouts.