Remember, Xan, it was YOUR challenge.
To everyone, thank you for your patience and for allowing me to jump in. I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes.
Cheers,
Remember, Xan, it was YOUR challenge.
To everyone, thank you for your patience and for allowing me to jump in. I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes.
Cheers,
*sigh* Now that the topic's purpose has been served, it looks like the pony can finally have its burial. More discussion of Template vs Feat vs Trait should probably wait for another day.
Mods, you can go ahead and lock this topic ;D
Who said I had conceded?
Not only that, but Enzo didn't answer my question as to what he proves if, indeed, he has found a feat I can't fully counter out of over 600. If there's only one such feat, then would that not make it an exception to the rule?
Casual reminder to all sides before things escalate: Keep it civil...
I never said anything about concessions or the feat in question. I asked what do you gain out of proving my suppositions wrong.
I don't see what my motives have to do with the feat I presented, Xan. Nevertheless, I will restate my reason for participating yet again. Please read carefully.
I gain the satisfaction of meeting your challenge.
Just indicate why the feat I presented does not meet the requirements, or concede that I've met your challenge.
The requirements:
The feat I presented:
Mage Slayer
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their Concentration checks to do so), but they are aware that they cannot cast defensively while being threatened by a character with this feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your spells and spell-like abilities by 4.
A? True.
B? True.
C? True.
E? Xan has yet to prove that I haven't met this 4th and final requirement.
I gain the satisfaction of meeting your challenge.
Just indicate why the feat I presented does not meet the requirements, or concede that I've met your challenge.
I'm not conceding because the errata for the book just started to surface on 3/16/05.
You still haven't told me why it's important that I meed the challenge for this feat. Where will it end, when you can't find another and this one's been fixed via errata?
I've never heard of anybody taking up a challenge publicly for the sake of the challenge when the end result to prove someone wrong can only allow the victor to discredit the person making the argument.
That's very presumptuous of you to assume the feat will be fixed in your favour. What evidence do you have to support this assumption?
Xan, it's your challenge. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that? It's YOUR challenge. You posted the challenge. This whole thread was started by YOU. IT'S YOUR CHALLENGE. How many times to I have to say this? It's important for you to meet the challenge because it's YOUR challenge.
Where will it end? Why, is there a time limit on your challenge, Xan? I tell you what... It will end when you can be man enough to admit that somebody's met YOUR challenge or when the errata that you say is forthcoming 'fixes' Mage Slayer, such that it no longer meets the requirements of this challenge. I will stand or fall on this feat; I will not go looking for another. And if I lose the challenge, I'll take it like a gentleman. Hopefully you can do the same.
Don't try to make this personal, Xan. It isn't, and I resent the implication. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong or discrediting anybody. I'm in this for the simple pleasure of taking on a challenge. Like any game of skill, debating can be a lot of fun provided the people engaged in it are mature and not vengeful. Losing a debate in this way is fine and nobody should feel injured.
I've said before I'm not interested in the argument that spawned this challenge. You and others can beat that back and forth till the cows come home. I'm in this for the challenge only. The only one discrediting anybody is you; you're discrediting yourself by not playing by the rules you agreed to.
Let me say this one... last... time...
I'm only in this for the pleasure of taking on a challenge.
...rhymes with clump, stump and thump...
So what would be the best forum to start a 'random chatter/free association' thread whose only purpose is to acquire enough posts to outstrip this thread?
RPG Discussion
On February 16th I put forward a feat in response to Xan's challenge. Seven weeks have passed and the feat has not been successfully argued against. It won't be, because it clearly meets all the requirements.
Seven weeks! It's time to concede, Xan.
Only when you admit your reason for entering the fray, Enzo.
Another attempt to take this off topic. Sigh.
Xan, I've explained my reasons for participating in this challenge already. I've not only explained my reasons, I've done so repeatedly. The fact is, I happened across the Natural Heavyweight feat and it occurred to me that it might meet a challenge I'd read on the PW forums -- this challenge. I'm competitive, so I posted it. It was fairly ruled out. My competitive nature kicked into overdrive and I went searching for another feat. I found 'Mage Slayer', posted it, and have been waiting for it to be evaluated on its merits. It's that simple.
Now can we please go back to discussing the merits of the feat I've put forward?
Oh, that poor Arcadian pony... someone please have mercy!!
-Ken :roll:
Admit? Admit?
He's stated it clearly several times already.
He likes a challenge.
If you doubt me see every other post Enzo has made. His reason isn't hidden or unclear. If you can read and think you can see it.
Go ahead. Those little numbers by the topic and at the bottom of the page, you know the green ones, will take you back to other replies and portions of this very discussion.
Admit? Admit?
He's stated it clearly several times already.
He likes a challenge.
If you doubt me see every other post Enzo has made. His reason isn't hidden or unclear. If you can read and think you can see it.
Go ahead. Those little numbers by the topic and at the bottom of the page, you know the green ones, will take you back to other replies and portions of this very discussion.
That is an appeal to inappropriate authority (reason to lie).
I'm gonna give you folks about two weeks to finish resolving this thread, ok? I'd really like to move us along to further discussions and all as this one seems to have fallen away from it's original purpose and the debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere anymore. In two weeks time from now, I'll close it down so we can progress.
Better go back to your Logic textbooks, Xan. An appeal to inappropriate authority is a fallacy committed when a conclusion in one area of inquiry is supported by appealing to the authority of someone whose authority or expertise lies in an independent and unrelated area of inquiry. You are mistaken, both in your understanding of this concept and in your application of it here.
No matter. Neither my motives, nor your understanding of the principles of logic, are relevant to the challenge. The feat I put forward, and how it meets the rules of the challenge should be the only things being argued.
But you're clearly not interested in discussing the feat in an intelligent and mature manner, are you? So, I won't ask you again to admit that I've met your challenge. It's not necessary. I know I've met it, and so does everyone else, including you. So, as far as I'm concerned, this is finished.
Instead, I'll just ask Clueless if she will kindly put this Arcadian pony out of its misery now. No point waiting two weeks. Hope you've all had as much fun as I've had.
Cheers,
You have a reason to lie as one of the Planewalker staff, that makes this a fallacy that appeals to inappropriate authority.
The problem is that you won't admit that you have more interest in this than just meeting a challenge. Not only that, but you are in an awful rush to prove me wrong, are you afraid of waiting for the errata to be fully compiled?
The problem is that you won't admit that you have more interest in this than just meeting a challenge. Not only that, but you are in an awful rush to prove me wrong, are you afraid of waiting for the errata to be fully compiled?
Rush? I posted mage Slayer 8 weeks ago. The errata for Complete Arcane was released a month ago.
As for your argument for appeal to inappropriate authority based on bias, it was misapplied. I have no involvement with the 3e PS Campaign Setting team and have no stake in the outcome of this challenge. Nor have I, implicitly or explicitly, appealed to any supposed authority as a member of PW staff. I presented a simple, published fact for your consideration.
I will not respond to any further comments by you on this thread. This conversation is over. Time to bury the pony.
Yes, please kill this thread before I give in to the urge to troll Xan. 'Twould not be a pretty sight. :twisted:
1.
2.
As for your argument for appeal to inappropriate authority based on bias, it was misapplied. I have no involvement with the 3e PS Campaign Setting team and have no stake in the outcome of this challenge. Nor have I, implicitly or explicitly, appealed to any supposed authority as a member of PW staff. I presented a simple, published fact for your consideration.
I will not respond to any further comments by you on this thread. This conversation is over. Time to bury the pony.
As with all errata posted by WotC, it is done in stages. It gets updated as the errors grow more apparent. You are trying to silence me by getting the thread killed before the errata has been fully compiled. This is an appeal to your authority with Planewalker so you can win the argument. I asked for your patience, but clearly you cannot handle that by telling me that 8 weeks is enough time for a full errata to be compiled of the book with the number of WotC books printed thus far that need to be examined by the staff for game balance issues.
You have made an appeal to inappropriate authority through your incessent pressuring of me to concede when I've told you what I'm waiting for in order to concede the argument. If you are not willing to wait for my concession when the full errata is compiled, then it is on your head and not mine. I told you that I will concede if in fact the errata, when fully compiled, does not fix Mage Slayer or other feats in that book to counter the penalty. Your attitude towards me in this regard is reprehensible and intolerable.
As far as I can see, after talking to a few people, the question has changed here into the following two:
1) Is it reasonable to believe that there is more forthcoming errata on Complete Arcane, and if so, how long should we wait for it?
2) Are the PW staff in general linked closely enough to the PSCS Writing Team to establish a "conflict of interest" as Xan puts it?
#1 is integral to the debate; errata can change the result. #2 is tangential but important to the context of the debate, and should probably be addressed sooner or later
Personally, I see no reason to doubt that Enzo's only purpose here is an intellectual challenge; even if there is a strong link (#2) there's no proof that he's acting in cahoots on purpose. Besides, if he was affiliated with the PSCS Writers, what reason could he possibly have to hide the fact?
As for whether pressure for a resolution is being applied to out-race new errata, let me simply remind everyone that should the information change in the future, the "winner" can change as well without any difficulty. If pressure is being applied and Xan were to concede, there's nothing stopping him from returning to the issue should a new erratum vindicate him. Indeed, such a fix would prove his point immutably; Wizards would only change it if feats aren't supposed to work that way!
However, for a temporary soluton, could we please agree on some kind of period for #1, or at least a method of determining whether more errata are forthcoming? I'd really like to see this mess drawn to a civil conclusion.
EDIT: And a number we have.
Why don't we let this thread sink into the Ether, and come back to it in, say, four months or so? ;D
As with all errata posted by WotC, it is done in stages. It gets updated as the errors grow more apparent. You are trying to silence me by getting the thread killed before the errata has been fully compiled. This is an appeal to your authority with Planewalker so you can win the argument. I asked for your patience, but clearly you cannot handle that by telling me that 8 weeks is enough time for a full errata to be compiled of the book with the number of WotC books printed thus far that need to be examined by the staff for game balance issues.
.
Well if you feel so sure of it Xan. There is a way to get a definitive answer quickly. WOTC does have dedicated people to give answers to rules questions as well as product questions. It is possable to simply ask them.
In fact that is exactly what I'm going to do.
I should have an answer in 2 buisness days.
Below is the exact text of what I submitted:
The problem is we have a feat which most seem to agree meets these requirements, but the party on the other side will not concede claiming that the feat will eventually be changed in errata. Actually, we have a couple of feats that are competitors, but one top runner.
The thread I speak of is:
/forums/viewtopic.php?t=390&start=120&postdays...
It goes on for 12 pages and isn't the first thread on this subject.
Here are the requirements we have come up with and both sides have agreed upon:
A. Form an official WOTC 3.5 source.
B. Contains a specific benefit to the character possessing that feat.
C. Contains a specific penalty to the character possessing that feat.
E. That penalty must not be something that can be completely negated. However if the ability penalized is not used that does not count as being negated because the penalty could arise later in game play.
The Feat in contention is in Complete Arcane called Mage Slayer.
Mage Slayer
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their Concentration checks to do so), but they are aware that they cannot cast defensively while being threatened by a character with this feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your spells and spell-like abilities by 4.
Another feat in contention is the FR Shadow Weave Magic feat.
Shadow Weave Magic [General]
You have discovered the dangerous secret of the Shadow Weave.
. Prerequisite: Wis 15 or patron deity Shar.
. Benefit: From now on, your spells tap the Shadow Weave in-stead of the Weave. You can also activate magic items that use the Shadow Weave without taking damage.
. The saving throw for every spell you cast from the schools of enchantment, illusion, and necromancy increases by +1. You also get a +1 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance with spells from these schools.
. The Shadow Weave proves less than optimal for effects involving energy or matter. Your effective caster level for spells you cast from the schools of evocation or transmutation (except spells with the darkness descriptor) is reduced by one. A 1st-level Shadow Weave user cannot cast spells from these schools at all.
. You can no longer cast spells with the light descriptor. No matter what school they are from, such spells automatically fail. Your ability to use magic items that produce light effects is also limited--you cannot invoke an item's light power if its activation method is spell completion or spell trigger.
. From now on, any magic item you create is a Shadow Weave item (see Chapter 2 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting).
I already asked. The reply I got was that they were unaware of what the designers were doing or why and did not address the issue beyond that when I asked why the feat was designed the way it was compared to other feats.
OK. Well I asked too, and slightly differently.
Wait for the errata to be compiled more? Wizards will never publish a "final errata" and tell us all that, "Yes, this is the definitive version of Complete Arcane. All your questions are officially put to rest now." This debate could be waiting forever for Xan to decide that, indeed, the published errata that makes no mention of his complaints may actually not support his complaints. Nor was the errata edition or supposed "completeness" ever a condition of the debate. Xan claims to have too busy a schedule to actively continue the debate itself and bring points about the feats in question, yet since he suggested this new line about "inappropriate authority," he has posted four times in three days, but only to derail the debate into a mire of misquoted technical fallacies and conflicts of interest which miraculously become significant only when the debate has been conclusively decided in Enzo's favor.
Secondly, Complete Arcane was released in November of last year, five months ago. That should be long enough to address something like a feat which horrendously betrays a basic principle of feat-building (including a drawback), unless, of course, there were no such principle and Enzo were right...
*continues to hope for a civil resolution*
Thanks for twisting my words, Eco. I said that it takes them 6 months to errata everything when they start the process.
Hell, even if I am wrong on this one feat, that's only .001% of published feats in your favor.
Oh for - you know. It would have been nice if you'd told us before you even tossed out the challenge that you weren't going to acknowledge the results. Would have saved a lot of people a lot of stress.
But... I though the point of using this one feat was that it only takes one feat to establish a precedant. Once set, that gives a basis that allows you to build up from there.
Or I've missed the point completly.
Either way, Im off to other threads before this one closes.
Or I've missed the point completly.
Either way, Im off to other threads before this one closes.
It was, but Xan lost so he changed the rules. So at this point the arguement is largly academic with Xan's actually coming out and saying it is being a small bonus prize. A good deal of the amusement for me is watching for what Xan will do next.
Oh for - you know. It would have been nice if you'd told us before you even tossed out the challenge that you weren't going to acknowledge the results. Would have saved a lot of people a lot of stress.
Who said anything about throwing it out, Clueless? My mentioning the percentage in your favor does not disqualify it, if it turns out to be correct. Rather, it gives you a tenuous hold at best for your argument. I would love to just discount it, but none here would let me despite the fact that for most precision-based needs 99.999% is better accuracy than what most professions can get. In terms of logical arguments, this would make your position very weak and mine very strong.
Or I've missed the point completly.
Either way, Im off to other threads before this one closes.
It was, but Xan lost so he changed the rules. So at this point the arguement is largly academic with Xan's actually coming out and saying it is being a small bonus prize. A good deal of the amusement for me is watching for what Xan will do next.
I didn't change the rules. You're just impatient.
Your words Xan. You wanted to see one and now you have.
What is proven here is not that there is any tendency towards feats not having drawback and only having benefits, that I readily concede, but what is proven is that in standard D&D rules it is possible to have feats with drawbacks by demonstrating one clearly canonical feat that does just that. Most feats have nothing to do with initiative so by the same reasoning Improved Initiative would be a poorly made feat because it balks and deviates from the standard tendency.
In a nutshell. The demonstration that one feat meets these requirments means that other feats with drawbacks built in are fine because it demonstrates that there is a standard that does allow feats to have draw-backs and penalties associated with them. The rariety of this standard does not matter or make it any less valid and many such standards are used. Metamagic feats have different standards than non-metamagic feats.
Trevor K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Official WOTC Help. I direct your attention to the portions in RED (marked so by me). Enjoy.
Just to stave off any controversy over what exactly this challenge is I am going to point to the original challenge as put forth by Xan in Representing the Factions and Sects (Part Two) page 6:
I proved Shadow Weave could be countered. You ignored that. If Mage Slayer goes unchanged, then you cripple the Warmage.
Also, when does Customer Service for WotC constitute expertise in D&D?
I'd prefer to redirect Xan's complaint to Guy Macon. Probably about as informative and a lot more fun to watch. :roll:
Also, when does Customer Service for WotC constitute expertise in D&D?
Ok. Even if all of that were true. Well that still leaves one feat that meets your challenge unless you have a counter for it (this is week and we only need one feat to have precedent to show that drawbacks are a valid part of feat construction.
Also, when does Customer Service for WotC constitute expertise in D&D?
Ok. Even if all of that were true. Well that still leaves one feat that meets your challenge unless you have a counter for it (this is week and we only need one feat to have precedent to show that drawbacks are a valid part of feat construction.
Which is why I asked to wait for the errata to build up. If you look at the errata page for D&D stuff, it tells you when a file has been updated because it's in red.
Trevor K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Official WOTC Help. I direct your attention to the portions in RED (marked so by me). Enjoy.
While Trevor might not be in your opinion a valid expert on the rules behind feats (even though he is an appointed representative for WOTC on that subject) he can be considered a trustworthy source of wether or not any errata is forth-coming. Thus you do not have to wait any longer Xan. You can concede right now.
You said that this feature of Planewalker feats invalidated them and was a reason why your template system was better b/c Planewalker, you belived, had to go with using rules that had already been put to use in other published WOTC matirials (It does not have to do that, nor is PW obligated to).
Here are some things you said related to this.
My reasoning is that if they have an agreement with WotC to use their material, it should parallel the construction of WotC products as closely as possible. In this instance, as it is the stance of PW to go with the 3.5 mechanics, they should follow the constructions of materials used by the WotC staff in order to comply with the system as much as possible.
and
I chose the template because it allowed me to add in the drawbacks. I created a new line specifically for drawbacks, but they easily could have been part of the special qualities of the template.