Fun finds thread V3.0

[Kethrian]

*chimes in too*
Empower doesn't work like that. Also, it notes Empower doesn't apply to opposed rolls but it's not talking about a Bullrush Check kthx. It uses Dispel Magic as it's example, and rolling a 1d20 vs a semi-static number is literately what Dispel Magic is meant for and does without including any other rules (such as rules on attacking). Also per RAW, the FAQ is absolutely is a part of the game's rules and we know it doesn't agree with you.

And Kethrian thinking 1d20+50% means "All spells with attack rolls are auto crits!" is right beside it in the same level of assinnine claims. Even with Improved Critical[touch attacks] and "omfg Empower Applies to that non-variable number as well!" the Critical Range  is only 18~20. There again applying Empower to the Attack Roll then in total it comes out to a 45% chance of success to threaten. Because you still need an 11 or higher on the die for it to work.

I'm just saying, someone before posting their wild claims they didn't think things through. At. All.
So the entire post rings with an false sense of purpose.

Umm, I think you need your eyes checked.  I never said Empower Spell would get all auto crits.  That was for Maximize Spell, where the attack roll would automatically be a 20 every time.  I also declared the whole concept a TO reading of the feats.  Of course no DM would ever allow it.  No DM would ever allow anything from TO.

[linklord231]

Yeah the FAQ clearly says it doesn't work like that. d20 rolls required to adjudicate a spell's success or failure are not considered to be a "variable numeric effect"
Which kind of begs the question, what IS considered a "variable numeric effect?" It can't be things found in the "effect" line of the spell, cuz then it wouldn't work with Fireball and the like.

[123456789blaaa]

Yeah the FAQ clearly says it doesn't work like that. d20 rolls required to adjudicate a spell's success or failure are not considered to be a "variable numeric effect"
Which kind of begs the question, what IS considered a "variable numeric effect?" It can't be things found in the "effect" line of the spell, cuz then it wouldn't work with Fireball and the like.

I thought the consensus was that the FAQ should be ignored since it sometimes contradicts itself?

[ariasderros]

I thought the consensus was that the FAQ should be ignored since it sometimes contradicts itself?

The consensus is that there is no consensus.
Some view it as RAW, others don't. Some only use it for clarification of RAW, picking and choosing.

[linklord231]

I am of the opinion that the FAQ is an authority only in the areas that the rules are unclear in. If the rules say one thing and the FAQ contradicts that, then the rules trump. In this particular case, the rules obviously contradict the designers' intent, and the FAQ attempts to clarify the intent. So either maximize makes rays auto-crit or it maximizes damage for Fireball, depending on whether you think the FAQ or the PHB trumps.

[SorO_Lost]

I thought the consensus was that the FAQ should be ignored since it sometimes contradicts itself?

Errata & Books contradicts them selves so that's not a very good counter point.

People just pick and choose what they like. And since more often that not, people half read stuff and tend to be ignorant little pricks about how their interpretation is the only and only true one. When the FAQ disagrees with their little trick they say and do whatever they can to insult it. It's a combination sweeping and appeal fallacy. eg. Convince the masses the FAQ is incorrect because of [don't insert a reason here] and it must be wrong in all cases, so believe my words and not its'.

The important part to remember here, and this goes beyond D&D rules, is a language is used to convey thoughts and ideas. You encode your thoughts into words in an attempt to pass your message which is in turn read and interpreted by the other guy. Perhaps the sender has poor communication skills and needs to explain things multiple times, or perhaps the other guy just doesn't listen obviously. But those excuses aside, it doesn't change the fact that "RAW" arguments are often based on disregarding the intended message in exchange for your own making it in every possible way incorrect and wrong. The "FAQ" is just another tool in the box to tell people to stfu, and being quite often the easier to directly quote and it's nature of being the frequently asked, it statistically finds it's way into all sorts of discussions.

[brujon]

Who writes the FAQ? Playtesters? Game Designers? The people who actually wrote the rules? No? Then it's just another "opinion". FAQ is not Word of God in any sense. It's not supposed to be an errata. it was never it's intended purpose.

when errata contradicts the book, the errata is the "right" way of seeing it, because of seniority, and it's explicitly said like so in the Rules Compendium. Where in the Rules Compendium does it mention the FAQ? Plus, it states in the FAQ's entry(https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) that it does not cover Errata.


The FAQ is an opinion. It's like asking your DM. It's not word of god. It was never intended as such.

My personal opinion? Ignore FAQ/Sage/CustServ. They're more often than not, answers given by people who have absolutely no awareness of the system.

[zook1shoe]

In the Book of Vile Darkness FAQ, the 4-5th one down is retarded!

they say that for a spell, a focus is a material component that is not consumed with the spell.

what?

[Garryl]

Other than the fact that they lack a properly-defined is-a relationship, focuses pretty much are material components that aren't consumed. That's pretty much how they're described in the SRD. Not quite, though, since, as I said above, they lack an is-a relationship.

[zook1shoe]

But there are quite a few things that call one out over the other, the way the FAQ puts it, they're the same

[Garryl]

Yeah. I'm just saying that it's not as far-fetched as "retarded" would imply.

[zook1shoe]

Lol k... Dumb then? Incompetent?

[SorO_Lost]

But there are quite a few things that call one out over the other, the way the FAQ puts it, they're the same

Oh thank Pelor for Zook.

Please reread this section everyone.

People just pick and choose what they like. And since more often that not, people half read stuff and tend to be ignorant little pricks about how their interpretation is the only and only true one. When the FAQ SRD disagrees with their little trick they say and do whatever they can to insult it.

Now look at those Focus rules. It's a Component (like somatic/verbal/xp/etc), but not a Material Component rule wise and Focus alone even says as much.

Finally, look at Zook's behavior. He is wrong on the FAQ entry (which btw is a ruling on the contradiction between Corrupt having no material components and AftS having one, or base rules suck) and when pointed out that he has no idea what a Focus is. Guess what he throws under the bus.

I believe my point is proven.

[linklord231]

So... what you're saying is that when you feel like the SRD should trump, it does (Material component != focus), but when you feel like the FAQ should trump, then it does (AftS has a focus, not a material component)? 

Either the FAQ is wrong, or the SRD got stealth-errata'd.   

[ariasderros]

I thought the consensus was that the FAQ should be ignored since it sometimes contradicts itself?

The consensus is that there is no consensus.
Some view it as RAW, others don't. Some only use it for clarification of RAW, picking and choosing.

I thought we should ignore this argument, since its continued existence contradicts itself.
Especially since I, at least, have read every last argument made here at least 7 times now.

Agree that there is no one true right answer.
Agree that the different people here are going to use this resource differently than you, and have reasons for it.
Agree that this is, inherently, because WotC is made of multiple people, and they don't always agree with each other either.

And then STFU.

[SorO_Lost]

You're completely missing everything.

First of all, get off this Material as an English word. Spells have a verity of Components, including and not limited to Verbal, Somatic, Focus, Material, and XP. So while you can hold a Focus and it is indeed a material object, it isn't a Material Component.

Secondly, BoVD says Corrupt spells have no Material Components. It also goes on to print AftS, which does have a Material Component entry. This is a contradiction in rules. So while best handling of it is specific entry trumps (AtfS), it doesn't change the fact the rules are in need of a correction.

BoVD's FAQ entry changes AtfS's Material Component into a Focus Component. And as a Focus it isn't consumed in casting, which is a of course & no duh thing obviously.

The only "problem" is the total lack of understanding towards what a Material Component is and why a Focus Component isn't the same thing. Zook tossed the SRD under the bus the moment is disagreed with him. Citing Focus Components are Material Components and consumed in spellcasting (poor poor clerics) despite being separate entries and Focus flat out saying it is unlike a Material Component.

[zook1shoe]

But there are quite a few things that call one out over the other, the way the FAQ puts it, they're the same

Oh thank Pelor for Zook.

Please reread this section everyone.

People just pick and choose what they like. And since more often that not, people half read stuff and tend to be ignorant little pricks about how their interpretation is the only and only true one. When the FAQ SRD disagrees with their little trick they say and do whatever they can to insult it.

Now look at those Focus rules. It's a Component (like somatic/verbal/xp/etc), but not a Material Component rule wise and Focus alone even says as much.

Finally, look at Zook's behavior. He is wrong on the FAQ entry (which btw is a ruling on the contradiction between Corrupt having no material components and AftS having one, or base rules suck) and when pointed out that he has no idea what a Focus is. Guess what he throws under the bus.

I believe my point is proven.

did you even read the link that i was referring to? well here it is

(click to show/hide)

The discussion of corrupt spells on page 78 in the Book
of Vile Darkness says corrupt spells have no material
components. However, the apocalypse from the sky and
evil weather spells are corrupt spells with material
components (an artifact and amethysts, respectively). Are
they supposed to be focuses?
A focus is a material component (just not a material
component that is consumed in the casting of the spell). The
two spell descriptions are correct, page 78 is wrong; however,
the artifact needed for the apocalypse from the sky spell is a
focus and is not consumed when the spell is cast.

this says EXACTLY that a focus IS a material component. not just a generic 'spell component'

how is that a wrong interpretation. its written exactly as i argued.

maybe they just had poor editing... its not like this is the first time that's happened

but please next time, do your own research before telling me i'm wrong or call out my 'behavior'

P.S.- no, i could not find out with my brief google/wizards search on what date the d20 SRD was set up, so i can't tell which came first.

(click to show/hide)

Focus (F)
A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, [snip]

we can assume that a focus is not a material component, since it gives the impression that its not. but assume is the key word, thats the difference between RAI and RAW

Secondly, BoVD says Corrupt spells have no Material Components. It also goes on to print AftS, which does have a Material Component entry. This is a contradiction in rules. So while best handling of it is specific entry trumps (AtfS), it doesn't change the fact the rules are in need of a correction.

as i said before, Wizards has had some problems with editing elsewhere.

also as i mentioned, i could not find out which came first. but that doesn't matter since the SRD doesn't say that a focus is no longer a material component, which has been 'ruled'

[SorO_Lost]

this says EXACTLY that a focus IS a material component. not just a generic 'spell component'

Please return to elementary school.

When it said "A focus is a material component (just not a material component that is consumed in the casting of the spell)." in the introduction, it wasn't meaning a Material Component, merely material. As observed seconds later when it flat out says it's a Focus.
"the artifact needed for the apocalypse from the sky spell is a focus and is not consumed when the spell is cast."

And honestly. That is all there is to it. Book rules are self contradicting, FAQ updates things, you can't read. And somewhere in that I'm supposed to believe you that the FAQ is so terrible written I should disregard it entirely because f*ck the official rule documents. Yeah, I'm going with no on that one.

[ariasderros]

A mod needs to split this crap.

[zook1shoe]

well i said my piece and whatever