Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[georgie_leech]

I would certainly agree that any quantity of X (apart from zero of it, which I would say is a quantity, just a quantity that happens to be zero) precludes zero, but then I would say that any quantity greater than two precludes two just as well as any lesser quantity does.

Do you think every job Posting that doesn't include "at least" in their experience requirements doesn't make sense then? Or are you able you accept that calling for 5 years experience does not mean that 5 years and 1 day invalid?

What? No, the whole point is that zero and nothing are not equivalent.

Agreed, mathematically the set containing 0 and the empty/null set are two very different things.

[PallentisLunam]

What? No, the whole point is that zero and nothing are not equivalent.

The point is that in common English two different concepts can be expressed with the same words. Which is what you are so vigorously trying to deny. You resort to mathematical notation to make your point clear, but when presented in English it can be accurately expressed with one set of verbiage and must rely on context to distinguish itself.

[georgie_leech]

The point is that in common English two different concepts can be expressed with the same words. Which is what you are so vigorously trying to deny. You resort to mathematical notation to make your point clear, but when presented in English it can be accurately expressed with one set of verbiage and must rely on context to distinguish itself.

Also this. Part of the reason set theory spells this out is that natural language doesn't handle this distinction well. Was trying to find the words for it but you beat me to it.

[GeminiVeil]

I don't post here often anymore, but this debate has gotten me more than a little curious. I kind of have to ask. . .

Jormengand, if I am understanding right, you are saying that since winning 3 times is NOT winning 2 times, because it doesn't use a term like 'at least,' then it should result in a loss, correct? If I am wrong, I do encourage you correcting me, as I don't want to misrepresent your position.

Assuming for the moment the above is true, I have a question. The feat 'Power Attack' has a Prerequisite of Str 13. Upon your interpretation, does that mean that ONLY creatures with a Str 13 may have Power Attack, and a Str 14 is not eligible?

And if Str 14 is eligible for power attack, how is that different than the lawyer case of '2 out of 3'?

This is a genuine question, I am not out to troll or make fun of. Just trying to understand more fully your position.

[Morphic tide]

I don't post here often anymore, but this debate has gotten me more than a little curious. I kind of have to ask. . .

Jormengand, if I am understanding right, you are saying that since winning 3 times is NOT winning 2 times, because it doesn't use a term like 'at least,' then it should result in a loss, correct? If I am wrong, I do encourage you correcting me, as I don't want to misrepresent your position.

Assuming for the moment the above is true, I have a question. The feat 'Power Attack' has a Prerequisite of Str 13. Upon your interpretation, does that mean that ONLY creatures with a Str 13 may have Power Attack, and a Str 14 is not eligible?

And if Str 14 is eligible for power attack, how is that different than the lawyer case of '2 out of 3'?

This is a genuine question, I am not out to troll or make fun of. Just trying to understand more fully your position.

That actually has rules text specifically stating that various prerequisites are or are not inclusive, pointing out that casting spells is not inclusive so casting 4th level spells does not inherently qualify you for 3rd level spell prerequisites. This is why SLA entry cheese needs specific spell levels.

Edit: This is why I'm on Jorms' side. Because 3.5 tends to be extremely specific in wording, with meta-rules giving this sort of context. It even has a specifically stated clause of using plain English when rules are referring to non-mechanical terms.

This attempt at linguistic precision is why contextless RAW is considered valid by so many. Pun Pun's absurdity is willingly constrained by optimizers only giving existing abilities.

[GeminiVeil]

That actually has rules text specifically stating that various prerequisites are or are not inclusive, pointing out that casting spells is not inclusive so casting 4th level spells does not inherently qualify you for 3rd level spell prerequisites. This is why SLA entry cheese needs specific spell levels.

Edit: This is why I'm on Jorms' side. Because 3.5 tends to be extremely specific in wording, with meta-rules giving this sort of context. It even has a specifically stated clause of using plain English when rules are referring to non-mechanical terms.

This attempt at linguistic precision is why contextless RAW is considered valid by so many. Pun Pun's absurdity is willingly constrained by optimizers only giving existing abilities.

I assume you are talking about page 89 of the PHB, under feat name and prerequisite? I admit I had missed that, but there is still an example. Just a different feat. That section says that you must have 'a class level in a character must have in order to acquire a feat.' It does not use the term minimum whatsoever. Weapon specialization says 'Fighter level 4', also not saying minimum or anything close.

Is that a more accurate example?

EDIT: If there is another section you are referring to, please point it out to me, because that section of the PHB is the only qualifier I can find right now.

[Jormengand]

I assume you are talking about page 89 of the PHB, under feat name and prerequisite? I admit I had missed that, but there is still an example. Just a different feat. That section says that you must have 'a class level in a character must have in order to acquire a feat.' It does not use the term minimum whatsoever. Weapon specialization says 'Fighter level 4', also not saying minimum or anything close.

If you have attained fighter level 5, you have also attained fighter level 4, because a level is an object with a numerical value attached to it, just like how if I visit 4 Hammersmith Road (I don't even know if there's a Hammersmith Road but I suppose there probably is) and then visit 5 Hammersmith Road then I have actually visited both locations. However, if I visit 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Hammersmith Road then the number of houses on Hammersmith Road you've visited is 5, and not 4 or 3 or any other number. It's why the prerequisite is fighter level 4th, and not must have four levels in fighter.

However, hit point totals are not objects with numerical values attached. If I add three hit points to my 23 hit points, I get 26 hit points. Each hit point total isn't an object reference point the way that 3 Hammersmith Road or memory location 9 or int integerName. (In fact, it's actually a value that could be stored in the reference point int numberOfHitPoints, but the value itself isn't a reference, the same way that you could store the number of rolls you'd won in int numberOfRollsWon.) If I add 3 Hammersmith Road to 23 Hammersmith Road, I have two houses stacked on top of one another. If I add five levels of fighter to four levels of fighter, then I have nine levels of fighter. If I add fighter level 5th to fighter level 4th, I have five levels of fighter (but I still have fighter level 4th).

In general, reference points can't be added together - I can add the values of int integerName and int otherIntegerName together, but I can't actually add the reference points together. You can't really add Fighter Level Fifth to Fighter Level Fourth, not mathematically anyway, but you can add five levels of fighter to four levels of fighter. Also, reference points are only reference points because they contain, or can contain, values. 3 Hammersmith Road contains a house with some properties, and int numberOfHitPoints contains a number, but "45 hit points" doesn't contain a value, it is a value.

Crucially, then, the point is relatively simple: either numbers reference exact values, in which case winning three rolls isn't winning two rolls, or they reference subsets of values (whatever those are), in which case having five hit points is having zero hit points. Alternatively, you can set ten encounters a day on the players and smile and tell them that the DM is meant to send four encounters per day on the players, but it doesn't preclude sending any more (though it does concede that doing so would probably wipe out the party). I'm sure there are other examples that are obviously worded assuming that X means X, not any value equal to or less than X, but I'm not going to burrow through all the books trying to find one.

[weckar]

Here's a possible dysfunction I had not noted before that appears to go against intent:
Incarnate Construct loses all special attacks/qualities of the base creature.
Construct traits are generally listed separately from special qualities.
Ergo: Incarnate Constructs retain their Construct traits?

[Jormengand]

Here's a possible dysfunction I had not noted before that appears to go against intent:
Incarnate Construct loses all special attacks/qualities of the base creature.
Construct traits are generally listed separately from special qualities.
Ergo: Incarnate Constructs retain their Construct traits?

The traits of the construct type apply to constructs and don't apply to humanoids unless a rule specifies otherwise.

"A construct possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry)."

[weckar]

An incarnate construct has all the base creature’s characteristics except as noted here

Seems a pretty clear specification? Meh, never mind. I didn't think it a big one anyway. The fact that most constructs explicitly list having construct traits (rather than just having that come implicit from the type) makes this an oddball, as the type change doesn't seem like it would automatically overwrite that.

[Jormengand]

Seems a pretty clear specification? Meh, never mind. I didn't think it a big one anyway. The fact that most constructs explicitly list having construct traits (rather than just having that come implicit from the type) makes this an oddball, as the type change doesn't seem like it would automatically overwrite that.

The fact that the creature's type changes means that the type-based traits that it has changes - if you like, the fact that it loses its construct traits (because it loses its construct type) is listed there. In fact, it doesn't mean much else, except for favoured enemy and similar abilities which call for the creature's type to be checked.

[JoshuaZ]

Natural Numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc.

Whole Numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, ... etc.


I guess you're using an alternative definition of Natural Numbers that includes 0, so you were able to successfully misunderstand.

How useful of you.

Actually, whether natural numbers include 0 or not depends on the definition you are using. While the standard elementary school term is used that way, in many contexts 0 is a natural number.

[PallentisLunam]

Crucially, then, the point is relatively simple: either numbers reference exact values, in which case winning three rolls isn't winning two rolls, or they reference subsets of values (whatever those are), in which case having five hit points is having zero hit points. Alternatively, you can set ten encounters a day on the players and smile and tell them that the DM is meant to send four encounters per day on the players, but it doesn't preclude sending any more (though it does concede that doing so would probably wipe out the party). I'm sure there are other examples that are obviously worded assuming that X means X, not any value equal to or less than X, but I'm not going to burrow through all the books trying to find one.

You do realize that this isn't a case of one or the other, right? Just as you post demonstrates, some things can be addresses and some things can quantities without turning the whole system of numbers on its head. So sometimes numbers presented in D&D are addresses and sometimes they are quantities. This doesn't mean that either hit points and wins at trial are addresses or hit points and wins at trial are quantities. It is possible to say that hit points are addresses and wins at trial are quantities. When you can differentiate between X and Y you can treat X and Y differently.

[Socksy]

Actually, whether natural numbers include 0 or not depends on the definition you are using. While the standard elementary school term is used that way, in many contexts 0 is a natural number.

0 is not a Natural number. It is not. If it was, almost every proof involving natural numbers would have a clunky "x ∈ ℕ\{0}" term. I'd be willing to fight someone over this.

[JoshuaZ]

0 is not a Natural number. It is not. If it was, almost every proof involving natural numbers would have a clunky "x ∈ ℕ\{0}" term. I'd be willing to fight someone over this.

You'll be fighting a lot of set theorists then. This is also a situation where *context matters*. Set theorists use "natural number" to include 0 all the time, and it is clear when one is doing set theory. In my professional life I'm a number theorist, so when I say natural number I mean not including zero, and that's my default assumption, but I can do that while acknowledging that in some specific contexts that's not how people use it.

[Jormengand]

You do realize that this isn't a case of one or the other, right? Just as you post demonstrates, some things can be addresses and some things can quantities without turning the whole system of numbers on its head. So sometimes numbers presented in D&D are addresses and sometimes they are quantities. This doesn't mean that either hit points and wins at trial are addresses or hit points and wins at trial are quantities. It is possible to say that hit points are addresses and wins at trial are quantities. When you can differentiate between X and Y you can treat X and Y differently.

It's possible to say that hit points are addresses, but it's not possible that they actually are - hit points don't contain values, they are values. If the variable bobTheFightersHitPointTotal equals 34, then bobTheFightersHitPointTotal is an address and 34 is a value. Yes, you can assign something to bTFHPT byRef, but all that means is that you're using "However many hit points Bob has" as the value instead of "Thirty-four, which is the number of hit points Bob has right now". 34 hit points is a value, not a reference, because it doesn't contain information: it is information. What is, or could be, contained at the 34 hit point address, if it were an address?

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to say that hit points are addresses and not values, partly because it wouldn't make any sense for them to be.

[Nifft]

You'll be fighting a lot of set theorists then. This is also a situation where *context matters*. Set theorists use "natural number" to include 0 all the time, and it is clear when one is doing set theory. In my professional life I'm a number theorist, so when I say natural number I mean not including zero, and that's my default assumption, but I can do that while acknowledging that in some specific contexts that's not how people use it.

There are plenty of valid reasons to formally name a set which contains all positive integers and also zero.

There is no valid reason to re-use a name which already had meaning.

It's possible to say that hit points are addresses

"Has zero HP" is a phrase that means "does not have even one HP".

HP are a measure, and 0 is less than 1, but "has 0 HP" is not true if the target has 34 HP.

Note that value semantics are upheld -- "has 10 HP" is true if the target has 34 HP -- it's just that "has zero" is a different semantic proposition.

Zero has different properties from any of the positive integers, in formal math and also in English.

People who argue in good faith should not be confused about this.

[PallentisLunam]

It's possible to say that hit points are addresses, but it's not possible that they actually are - hit points don't contain values, they are values. If the variable bobTheFightersHitPointTotal equals 34, then bobTheFightersHitPointTotal is an address and 34 is a value. Yes, you can assign something to bTFHPT byRef, but all that means is that you're using "However many hit points Bob has" as the value instead of "Thirty-four, which is the number of hit points Bob has right now". 34 hit points is a value, not a reference, because it doesn't contain information: it is information. What is, or could be, contained at the 34 hit point address, if it were an address?

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to say that hit points are addresses and not values, partly because it wouldn't make any sense for them to be.

Addresses aren't references. They are locations. Hit point totals only make sense if they are like points on a line. You only ever have one current hit point total at a time and no others. This is how the rules avoid the I'm at 7 but I'm also at 0 problem. You can only ever be at one or the other. And just because the addresses are also ranked in relation to each other doesn't invalidate this position. It is objectively better to be at 100 HP than at -10. You move from one to the other by gaining or losing values, like moving into a better house or having to downsize to a crappy apartment.

You can also see this relationship on a Cartesian plane. Each coordinate is an address and you can move between addresses by adding or subtracting from the X and Y values.

I'm not presenting evidence, I'm presenting arguments. There's not going to be a line in the rules saying "here's how the logic works just in case somebody is trying to claim there is a hole in the underlying foundation of the game by willfully misinterpreting basic grammatical constructions and expecting plain language to conform to rigorous mathematical standards of expression", therefore we must use logic and some basic assumptions of how grammar can be interpreted to come to reasonable conclusions.

Once again I'm not saying that you are wrong and it is impossible to read the rules as you are reading them. All I am pointing out is that there is a valid alternative that does not produce a dysfunction.

[Jormengand]

"Has zero HP" is a phrase that means "does not have even one HP".

HP are a measure, and 0 is less than 1, but "has 0 HP" is not true if the target has 34 HP.

Note that value semantics are upheld -- "has 10 HP" is true if the target has 34 HP -- it's just that "has zero" is a different semantic proposition.

Zero has different properties from any of the positive integers, in formal math and also in English.

People who argue in good faith should not be confused about this.

Addresses aren't references. They are locations. Hit point totals only make sense if they are like points on a line. You only ever have one current hit point total at a time and no others. This is how the rules avoid the I'm at 7 but I'm also at 0 problem. You can only ever be at one or the other. And just because the addresses are also ranked in relation to each other doesn't invalidate this position. It is objectively better to be at 100 HP than at -10. You move from one to the other by gaining or losing values, like moving into a better house or having to downsize to a crappy apartment.

It's good to know that you disagree with each other. Zero is special but it's not special, and hit points work like successes (except at zero) but hit points don't work like successes. It's almost as though you were making up bull excreta on the spot.

[PallentisLunam]

It's good to know that you disagree with each other. Zero is special but it's not special, and hit points work like successes (except at zero) but hit points don't work like successes. It's almost as though you were making up bull excreta on the spot.

Or you know could be that we also disagree with each other and you all in good faith and happen to see things differently. Surprise! This is not the world vs Jormengand thread.

I'm arguing for my point and Nifft is arguing for theirs. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we automatically have to agree with each other.

And, now hear me out on this, it is actually possible that all three readings of the text can be supported but that only one creates a dysfunction!

Edit: Nevermind, Nifft we should cross reference our notes more carefully before positing next time lest we inadvertently expose the Illuminati conspiracy to gaslight Jorms

[georgie_leech]

Or you know could be that we also disagree with each other and you all in good faith and happen to see things differently. Surprise! This is not the world vs Jormengand thread.

I'm arguing for my point and Nifft is arguing for theirs. Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we automatically have to agree with each other.

And, now hear me out on this, it is actually possible that all three readings of the text can be supported but that only one creates a dysfunction!

Edit: Nevermind, Nifft we should cross reference our notes more carefully before positing next time lest we inadvertently expose the Illuminati conspiracy to gaslight Jorms

Ok, keep it quiet you two or we'll blow the lid off of this thing.

But for the record, count me in the "0 is treated differently linguistically and mathematically" camp. As, again, one can divide by most numbers, but not 0. Ergo, treated differently mathematically. Aside from the above discussion between having any of Something, and not having any of something.

[Nifft]

It's good to know that you disagree with each other.

Even if we disagree about everything else, we can still agree that you're wrong.

Your wrongness brings us all together.

*seasonal music*

[Inevitability]

Even if we disagree about everything else, we can still agree that you're wrong.

Your wrongness brings us all together.

*seasonal music*

Please don't strengthen Jormengand's 'me against the world' mindset.

[nailbudday]

A fifth level Dirgesinger gains the ability to animate a corpse for as long as they continue to perform, and the ability states that the undead is perfectly loyal and follows all commands given. Cool... how do you command the undead to do something if you're using your standard action to perform every round?

[Nifft]

how do you command the undead to do something if you're using your standard action to perform every round?

Fight, fight, fight the stupid ogres!

[PallentisLunam]

A fifth level Dirgesinger gains the ability to animate a corpse for as long as they continue to perform, and the ability states that the undead is perfectly loyal and follows all commands given. Cool... how do you command the undead to do something if you're using your standard action to perform every round?

Talking is a free action?

[nailbudday]

Talking is a free action?

First, that only works if you're not singing, whistling, playing a flute, etc.

Second, the only real precedent for commanding undead, Rebuking Undead, still requires a standard action to tell your undead what to do. The Fiendbinder similarly requires a standard action to tell their demons to do something.

[PallentisLunam]

First, that only works if you're not singing, whistling, playing a flute, etc.

Second, the only real precedent for commanding undead, Rebuking Undead, still requires a standard action to tell your undead what to do. The Fiendbinder similarly requires a standard action to tell their demons to do something.

Interesting that you don't bring up the Command Undead spell. Also, while singing and whistling, pointing or sign language are still possible and whilst playing a flute there are still plenty of opportunities to communicate.

[Jormengand]

Please don't strengthen Jormengand's 'me against the world' mindset.

I'm sorry, but a thread full of people being rude and arrogant towards me for the sake of being rude and arrogant towards me, and not even having the temerity to be right, kinda does that to you.

[flare'90]

A fifth level Dirgesinger gains the ability to animate a corpse for as long as they continue to perform, and the ability states that the undead is perfectly loyal and follows all commands given. Cool... how do you command the undead to do something if you're using your standard action to perform every round?

You use Perform (dance) or (mimicry)? Even Perform (oratory) would work.

EDIT: Since dirgesinger requires any Perform, there's no problem using a string instrument and just command undead with your voice. Singing the commands as part of a song might also work. Now, if you use a wind instrument you're out of luck.
Pity you get only one undead, you can't do Thriller.

I'd say that it's not a dysfunction.