I'll now wait for you to gishgallop your way through an explanation of why using the rules to demonstrate how your rules interpretation falls apart is illegitimate, but a nonsense analogy to baskets of fruit is suuuuper-helpful
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
Nailed it
Look, I can make irrelevant analogies too! If you walk into a tailor shop with a sign posted saying, "Alterations: two hours, 50 gp", but when you enter the nice tailor says, "Oh, I can actually do those alterations for you right away. Give me two minutes", do you expect it to be free because they didn't also mention the cost?
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You have a very strange idea of the word "firmly." Normally, when I use that word, I'd be referring to something that's very explicitly stated by the text.
Ok, so we're going to quibble over the usage of the word "firmly" now during the explanation of a concept? I hereby retract the word "firmly". It makes no difference at all.
It makes no difference whether or not the things you're saying are explicitly supported by the text? I dunno about that one.
Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required.
That's an assumption that isn't supported by the text. You're assuming that you spend material components, do an hour of research, spend some more, do another hour of research, and then repeat until you've done enough research. Meanwhile, I'm assuming nothing, because the rules do what they say they do, and because one doesn't have to do even a miniscule fraction of all the assumptions that you make regularly in order to understand the rules correctly.
What? How are you even arguing here? Of all of the things to argue about it's strange to pick this -- it's established fact at this point. I really hope that I don't have to create a data table and a graph that shows how the cost goes up as the time increases according to the general rule, that would be pretty baffling.
The interesting thing is that the "data table and graph" that magically proves your point would work just as well for the ink time and costs, and yet you seem perfectly okay with accepting the idea that ink cost and time aren't proportional by the exact same amount at all times. Why is this? Maybe because there are assumptions that you're making specifically about material components that don't actually have a basis within the text. Just a thought.
So this all boils down to magic not making sense to you? Of course it doesn't make sense. It's magic. If the feature said that it conjured a bunch of ethereal lab assistants for the process of transcription, all that would do is change the flavor, not the mechanics. Why is it that you need this change to flavor to interpret the text as it is? Why is "the magic quill speeds the whole process up" not enough, but "the magic lab assistants speed the whole process up" is just fine?
The answer to the last question is that the Feature describes the quill as participating in the transcription half of the process. The Feature also speeds the whole process up. Nothing about either of those addresses the fact that the process for experimentation has not changed. The most obvious way that this is possible is if the quill transcribes spells without the need for them to be deciphered.
The feature doesn't describe the quill speeding up the transcription any more than it describes speeding up the experimentation, you know. You just assume that it speeds up the transcription because it's "the most obvious way that this is possible," which is just an arbitrary assumption that you came up with that really isn't helpful in a RAW argument.
Hopefully we're not also seriously bickering about my usage of the word "implication" as well. I'm sure that I could rephrase that statement if it's confusing to you.
I'm not bickering about the use of the word "implication." In fact, I find the use of the word to be completely and entirely accurate. That's my whole point.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
It's not getting snippy about mathematical notation, it's saying that the math that supposedly proves your point doesn't exist. It's not getting snippy about vocabulary words, it's about acknowledging what RAW is while having an argument specifically about RAW. I'd love to discuss the topic, but sometimes you have to talk about why certain arguments are invalid in order to continue with the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
Oh, this actually explains a lot. I apologize for treating you like someone making silly arguments to prolong a thread for lulz
RAW stands for Rules As Written. It's shorthand for "the rules do what they say they do, no more and no less." It sticks to a strictly literal interpretation of the text of the rules. Basically, none of the arguments you have made in this thread are even close to a Rules As Written argument, because they all rely on inference and extrapolation. "If x gets reduced, y must also be reduced even though y isn't referenced in the rule because..." is, on its face, not a RAW argument because the rule in question does not invoke y at all
Your arguments could be attempts at establishing an RAI -- Rules As Intended -- but they fail on that front too, because we know (as was referenced on page 1 of this thread over a year ago) that the UA version of Order of Scribes explicitly listed that both time and cost of transcription were reduced by using the Wizardly Quill, and only one of those made it to final publication. RAI, the Quill reduces only time, not cost, otherwise it would still explicitly say it reduced the cost. In RAW, everything has to be explicit, because that's what the term means. If it's not Written, it's not RAW
That leaves you explaining why you would rule a certain way as a DM, in which case, knock yourself out, my dude. We just don't need 15 pages of you telling us why your homebrew ruling is the bestest
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
The actual definition has been correctly told above me. I'm just going to add: Before going into debate on what the rules state, and especially when the term has been used numerous times here, please read up on what the definition actually is. To add to this: RAW - Rules As Written; describes what's written in the text of the books and nothing more RAI - Rules As Intended; describes what the designers' intent was (an example of this: Simulacrums aren't supposed to be able to gain HP in any way except as the spell describes, but the spell doesn't actually explicitly state that it can't regain via Second Wind; additionally, it isn't supposed to be able to regain ANY abilities that recharge on a rest, but the text focuses on spell slots) RAF - Rules As Fun; describes any rulings made at the table that aren't covered by the rules or go against the written rules, but the table prefers and agrees to use; a common example of this is when people decide to roll damage for each dart of Magic Missile instead of using a single damage roll to apply to all darts
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
There are plenty of reasons to argue WHY you think that the new rule does not supersede the old rule in this way, but saying that the reason why is because and only because the word "oranges" was not used is insufficient since the statement itself is a valid way to express the meaning which includes 0 oranges. This argument simply is not good enough. You would need an additional reason in order to make a convincing argument.
Once more.
You're making an assumption that the rules line is the full expenditure of the spell. However, as it's written, there's no evidence to state this as the case. When two rules conflict with each other, the more specific rule takes precedence; however, only the specified portions are altered. In your analogy, as I expressed before, the sign isn't changed. It simply gets a 2 tacked over the top of the 10 for the apple cost.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
You're calling yourself out here.
Ultimately, the Rules As Written definition doesn't replace the cost. There's nothing stating it does, whereas other subclasses' reduction features do, as does Master Scrivener later. By your own logic, the other subclasses' features to reduce the time wouldn't need to write that they reduce the cost, yet they do. Further evidence that this isn't intended by the design team, both that this ability isn't written consistently with the others and the UA version had a reduction which was removed in the final product.
This debate has been going on for 16 pages with no progress, 14 of which were in the last month alone. And is delving into non-constructive territory with words like "bickering", "quibble", and "snippy". As such, I am locking this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Nailed it
Look, I can make irrelevant analogies too! If you walk into a tailor shop with a sign posted saying, "Alterations: two hours, 50 gp", but when you enter the nice tailor says, "Oh, I can actually do those alterations for you right away. Give me two minutes", do you expect it to be free because they didn't also mention the cost?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It makes no difference whether or not the things you're saying are explicitly supported by the text? I dunno about that one.
The interesting thing is that the "data table and graph" that magically proves your point would work just as well for the ink time and costs, and yet you seem perfectly okay with accepting the idea that ink cost and time aren't proportional by the exact same amount at all times. Why is this? Maybe because there are assumptions that you're making specifically about material components that don't actually have a basis within the text. Just a thought.
The feature doesn't describe the quill speeding up the transcription any more than it describes speeding up the experimentation, you know. You just assume that it speeds up the transcription because it's "the most obvious way that this is possible," which is just an arbitrary assumption that you came up with that really isn't helpful in a RAW argument.
I'm not bickering about the use of the word "implication." In fact, I find the use of the word to be completely and entirely accurate. That's my whole point.
It's not getting snippy about mathematical notation, it's saying that the math that supposedly proves your point doesn't exist. It's not getting snippy about vocabulary words, it's about acknowledging what RAW is while having an argument specifically about RAW. I'd love to discuss the topic, but sometimes you have to talk about why certain arguments are invalid in order to continue with the discussion.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Oh, this actually explains a lot. I apologize for treating you like someone making silly arguments to prolong a thread for lulz
RAW stands for Rules As Written. It's shorthand for "the rules do what they say they do, no more and no less." It sticks to a strictly literal interpretation of the text of the rules. Basically, none of the arguments you have made in this thread are even close to a Rules As Written argument, because they all rely on inference and extrapolation. "If x gets reduced, y must also be reduced even though y isn't referenced in the rule because..." is, on its face, not a RAW argument because the rule in question does not invoke y at all
Your arguments could be attempts at establishing an RAI -- Rules As Intended -- but they fail on that front too, because we know (as was referenced on page 1 of this thread over a year ago) that the UA version of Order of Scribes explicitly listed that both time and cost of transcription were reduced by using the Wizardly Quill, and only one of those made it to final publication. RAI, the Quill reduces only time, not cost, otherwise it would still explicitly say it reduced the cost. In RAW, everything has to be explicit, because that's what the term means. If it's not Written, it's not RAW
That leaves you explaining why you would rule a certain way as a DM, in which case, knock yourself out, my dude. We just don't need 15 pages of you telling us why your homebrew ruling is the bestest
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The actual definition has been correctly told above me. I'm just going to add: Before going into debate on what the rules state, and especially when the term has been used numerous times here, please read up on what the definition actually is. To add to this:
RAW - Rules As Written; describes what's written in the text of the books and nothing more
RAI - Rules As Intended; describes what the designers' intent was (an example of this: Simulacrums aren't supposed to be able to gain HP in any way except as the spell describes, but the spell doesn't actually explicitly state that it can't regain via Second Wind; additionally, it isn't supposed to be able to regain ANY abilities that recharge on a rest, but the text focuses on spell slots)
RAF - Rules As Fun; describes any rulings made at the table that aren't covered by the rules or go against the written rules, but the table prefers and agrees to use; a common example of this is when people decide to roll damage for each dart of Magic Missile instead of using a single damage roll to apply to all darts
Once more.
You're making an assumption that the rules line is the full expenditure of the spell. However, as it's written, there's no evidence to state this as the case. When two rules conflict with each other, the more specific rule takes precedence; however, only the specified portions are altered. In your analogy, as I expressed before, the sign isn't changed. It simply gets a 2 tacked over the top of the 10 for the apple cost.
You're calling yourself out here.
Ultimately, the Rules As Written definition doesn't replace the cost. There's nothing stating it does, whereas other subclasses' reduction features do, as does Master Scrivener later. By your own logic, the other subclasses' features to reduce the time wouldn't need to write that they reduce the cost, yet they do. Further evidence that this isn't intended by the design team, both that this ability isn't written consistently with the others and the UA version had a reduction which was removed in the final product.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThis debate has been going on for 16 pages with no progress, 14 of which were in the last month alone. And is delving into non-constructive territory with words like "bickering", "quibble", and "snippy". As such, I am locking this thread.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources