Immunity to Normal Weapons, ... and Armor Penetration. Options

[Draco18s]

No, it's Monty Haul, because this is an RPG forum. Duh.

*Facepalm*

[Neraph]

Aw, you failed the Monty Haul problem, Neraph. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well, he never asked if I should change or not. The probability still remains at 33% for each door, regardless of one wrong door being revealed. My chance of winning if I don't switch remains at 33%. If I switch, however, my chance of winning increases to 66%. That is, at least, the way I understand it.

[Irion]

@Draco18s

Really? So you've perfected the universal lossless compression algorithm? That works on random data?
That is, you can remove a reference and leave the same information, and do this repeatedly over and over again, and the meaning of the text will never change.

You know a referance in Informatik is something different to a referance in written language.

By removing a rule, the outcome should invariably change.

1 + 2 + 3 = 6. But if you remove the "+2" the most it can ever be is 4.

Ähm, referances work more like that.
A) X=Y +3
Y= X/2

B) Using the formulas in A meaning, X= 6 for our Problem.
(You see, the referance gives you additional information, but the the result we are interested in stays the same)

(On a short note for a rulebook it ismore like A+B+C+D-> X . (Mostly none of the information exept the X are given). The auther does not give how he got to the rules he has written and what he thinks the referance/general rule should mean for his ruling or why/how his ruling is deducted the way it is. But since this all is missing, we are to assume (talking RAW), that his deductions are correct no matter how wrong they seem)
Referances are mostly given in sientific work. There they go to other books or sometimes artikles written a decades ago. If you would need to find them to get the right information out of the
paper, I would say the guy writing the paper is an ass. (Actually you use your diploma for something like that)

And even if you give a referance to the same piece you are writing, it is very bad writing if the referance can change the meaning of what you wrote.

If you want to compare it to a programm: A book is a already executed programm, having saved all the wanted data. What you talk about is stealing the referance from the table of the author. Of course he could not write, because he is missing information. But if he has already written it down (the programm has already been executed) you may take it away, it won't change anything in the results.

[Draco18s]

If you want to compare it to a programm: A book is a already executed programm, having saved all the wanted data. What you talk about is stealing the referance from the table of the author. Of course he could not write, because he is missing information. But if he has already written it down (the programm has already been executed) you may take it away, it won't change anything in the results.

Except that this analogy is wrong.

The books aren't the output data of a computer program. They are the computer program.
The program as we see it may be the compiled binary and not the original source, but it is still code.

[Thanee]

1) Full: This is the full text. The following two are leaving out superfluous parts of this text, in order to reduce it to its core.

The critter gains an "Armor Rating" equal to twice its Magic against that damage. The Immunity Armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor, above), meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage. Additionally, this "armor rating" is added to the damage resistance dice as normal armor.

2) Irion (and a handfull of others): This is, according to you, the complete rule. Nothing relevant is missing here. You could use it without ever taking a single glance at the "Hardened Armor" description.

The critter gains an "Armor Rating" equal to twice its Magic against that damage. The Immunity Armor is treated as "hardened" protection, meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage. Additionally, this "armor rating" is added to the damage resistance dice as normal armor.

3) Rest of the World: This is all that is necessary here, as the actual rule isn't in the same paragraph (hence the reference).

The critter gains an "Armor Rating" equal to twice its Magic against that damage. The Immunity Armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor, above).

Right so far?

Bye
Thanee

[Saint Hallow]

Quick question... is falling damage able to bypass ItNW?

[bobbaganoosh]

Quick question... is falling damage able to bypass ItNW?

Characters soak falling damage with Body + half Impact Armor. Unless the character with ItNW is allergic to the ground, they would get half of the armor granted by ItNW against the fall.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Characters soak falling damage with Body + half Impact Armor. Unless the character with ItNW is allergic to the ground, they would get half of the armor granted by ItNW against the fall.

So, the answer is Yes, Falling damage can bypass ITNW, if the fall is from high enough.

[KarmaInferno]

"How far up are you gonna levitate that guy anyway?"

"Far enough."




-k

[Irion]

@Thanee
Short notice:
My definition of RAW is quite simple:
The interpretation must not be contradicted by ANYTHING written in the rules. One contradiction, no matter how weak, and it is out.

So short: The only reason I am able to still stand by my interpretation is, that "to be treated as" does not imply much (only general approach). Would they have written "using the rules of" my argumentation would fail.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

@Thanee
Short notice:
My definition of RAW is quite simple:
The interpretation must not be contradicted by ANYTHING written in the rules. One contradiction, no matter how weak, and it is out.

So short: The only reason I am able to still stand by my interpretation is, that "to be treated as" does not imply much (only general approach). Would they have written "using the rules of" my argumentation would fail.

Mechanically, "to be treated as" and "Using the rules of" are functionally identical. So you fail anyways. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, they're equivalent.

[Thanee]

@Thanee
Short notice:
My definition of RAW is quite simple:
The interpretation must not be contradicted by ANYTHING written in the rules. One contradiction, no matter how weak, and it is out.

How are you able to play the game at all? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

So short: The only reason I am able to still stand by my interpretation is, that ...

... that you are very stubborn! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Nothing wrong there, but you really should be able to realize how weak (and that is quite an understatement still) your argument actually is.

Bye
Thanee

[Irion]

@Thanee

How are you able to play the game at all?

As I would be so stupid and play RAW.

Just take a look at the "social rules"...

Nothing wrong there, but you really should be able to realize how weak (and that is quite an understatement still) your argument actually is.

Depends, what you define as "weak" I guess.
What was brought up against my point, short of "it is weak", "you are stupid" etc.?

Draco18s is the only one really trying, and he now to argues a printing is a program.


@Draco18s

The books aren't the output data of a computer program. They are the computer program.
The program as we see it may be the compiled binary and not the original source, but it is still code.

You are aware that paper/a book is not interactive?
If you want to see it as code, you end up with a code without any variable,pointer, loop etc.
Try changing words in the document, I assure you, other words won't be affected.


Sometimes it is helpfull to read text like code (or even rewrite it as such) to get an unterstanding. Thats mostly if there are used a lot of cases.

But "referance" for books has a completly different meaning than for programs. (Mostly due to the limitation of books and text in general)
In a sientific book I would need to state why the information I give is different from what is said in the reference.
So the work I do with the information of the reference has to be in the book. (As does the reason I come up with any information)
In a work of fiction, this would be quite silly to do.
Having one page written, why the rule is like it is, would be kind of annoying. (Helpfull to get the intention of the author so)
A program needs to have those parts. It has to work with what the input is.
This means: We can't have any idea in general what aspects of the information, he is refering to, the author thought to be important for his ruling and which he did not .

If you want to stay by the rules as written you can't argue suspected intention of the author.
You have to assume every word the author wrote was meant to be there and every word he did not write was meant to not be there.

So a reference has close to no standing against a directly written rule ingeneral. (This is something generally true in free writing)

For your interpretation you have to assume the author made a mistake. If you assume this, every bit of Raw could also be a mistake.
So to argue RAW you would first need to arguee that the wording of RAW was not a mistake. You would/could probably use the fluff to argue that, thus giving the fluff a higher standing than RAW, in a RAW discussion.

[bobbaganoosh]

...
If you want to stay by the rules as written you can't argue suspected intention of the author.
You have to assume every word the author wrote was meant to be there and every word he did not write was meant to not be there.
...

If every word that the author wrote was meant to be there, and if every word that the author did not write was meant to not be there, then editors would be out of a job, and errata would never have to be released. However, it is safe to assume that the author is human, and therefore imperfect. Authors sometimes make mistakes, as do the editors checking the author's work. Sometimes a rule here or there is overlooked, because while it is clear to the author how the rule works, not everyone who plays the game will be able to interpret it unambiguously. If the author's intent isn't perfectly clear from the text, then it is up to us to decide what is both the most reasonable interpretation of the rule, and what is the most fair interpretation of the rule.

[Irion]

@bobbaganoosh
Correct.
Making a RAW interpretation unreasonable.

[Thanee]

What was brought up against my point, short of "it is weak", "you are stupid" etc.?

I don't think anyone called you "stupid"?

The explanation, why your point is weak, is on the previous pages. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Draco18s]

@Draco18s

You are aware that paper/a book is not interactive?
If you want to see it as code, you end up with a code without any variable,pointer, loop etc.
Try changing words in the document, I assure you, other words won't be affected.

A program doesn't need to be interactive in order to be a program.

CODE

print "Hello World"

Is a program. It doesn't take any input and only prints a single line of output, but it's still a program.

Also, the core book DOES have variables. What do you think "Body" "Armor" and "Willpower" are? They're keywords that indicate a spot on the character sheet that holds a value that varies from sheet to sheet. A programming language doesn't need pointers in order to be a programming language (javascript gets by just fine without them). Nor do you need loops (and the core rules have those too: they're not defined as such, but check the combat section, combat is divided into rounds and each round has an order...).

The whole point I'm making is that the rule book is a set of instructions. A computer program is also a set of instructions.

The difference is that programming languages are instructions that a machine is meant to follow, whereas rules for a game are instructions that the GM and players are meant to follow (but unlike machines, we can interpret those rules differently from case to case*).

*Another reason why everyone should play the "Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich" game, in which you try to detail as exactly as possible how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and another person follows those instructions to the letter (once someone made a typo. "Put lip on table." It was quite humorous).

[Wiseman]

Personally we run it as modified DV and AP applies, just like hardened armor.

I can see why some would say otherwise, but really when it gets down to defining the meaning of the word meaning, its probably a stretch. The simplest explanation is it uses all the rules as hardened armor, which is consistent, doesn't break anything, and I see no reason to argue semantics to fix something that isnt broke.

But if I were to run it without AP factored in, I'd only use the unmodified DV. Either its modified or it isnt, no cherry picking.

[Draco18s]

But if I were to run it without AP factored in, I'd only use the unmodified DV. Either its modified or it isnt, no cherry picking.

Except that each leads to wildly different results.

[Wiseman]

It would, but to each their own. It seems disingenuous to me to pick the modified DV from hardened armor rules and ignore the AP per the ITNW section.

Why is using modified DV and AP a problem to begin with? It results in skill and ammunition type factoring in to whether the critter takes damage, rather than just what type of weapon you use.
Why would weapon and skill matter but not ammunition?

If base DV is the determined by the weapon, why wouldnt you adjust for AP of the weapon, or bullets which is the only object actually touching the critter.

So interpertations of the english language aside, why go out of the way for something counterintuitive and a stretch of comprehension skill?

[Bodak]

This discussion, like the "moving wards" discussion, has been gone over at LEAST five times during my tenure on these boards.

It might help if the Search function permitted phrases that include words of three letters or fewer but if people have a TLDR attitude, they're just going to ask the same question again and receive the same "here we go again" responses rather than necroread. If there's one thing history teaches us, it is that we don't learn from history.

[Stalag]

How about this: Ask your GM. However he thinks it works is then how it works at your table.

If you are the GM then you decide what makes the most sense to you then that is how it works.

Though really, it's just hardened armor (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

On the other hand, *discussion* boards are just about the worst way to archive knowledge, and maybe each generation enjoys talking about things for themselves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Now, if there were a nice wiki of Frequently-and-Infrequently Asked Questions…

[Neraph]

Quick question... is falling damage able to bypass ItNW?

Situationally - for example, Materialization Spirits don't fall.

So short: The only reason I am able to still stand by my interpretation is, that "to be treated as" does not imply much (only general approach). Would they have written "using the rules of" my argumentation would fail.

It's quite easy to counter with "the fact that they added a direct reference to the rules for Hardened Armor fulfills your requirement that they put 'using the rules of' - just in a different format." We're now arguing in circles for three pages.