On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:26 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The modified value
>> of an instance of an integral switch is its value, plus the sum of
>> all its Modifiers, but never more than the switch's Maximum or
>> less than its Minimum.
>
> Well, I claimed on IRC that this is unclear - what happens if it is
> more? obviously it's intended to be capped, but the wording seems just
> like a claim that it can't be more - but whatever.
Eh, I'm fine with it. It seems reasonably common (at least
historically) to, if a rule has exceptions, simply state the rule
without qualification and then state the exceptions. "This coupon may
be redeemed for 10% off any one item. This coupon is not valid for
items with a regular price above $50."
>> Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all references in rules, other
>> than this rule and Rule 2162, to the value of an instance of an
>> integral switch are references to its modified value.
>
> I think it's bad form to explicitly refer to another rule - spooky
> action at a distance and all that. I would prefer distinguishing "a
> foo's bar" (the modified value) from "the value of foo's bar switch"
> (the unmodified value).
I'd prefer to just have "the value" (and equivalent terms) always
refer to the unmodified value, and then say "the modified value"
explicitly whenever you want to talk about that. You could define
shorthands for each individual switch ("Base strength is a player
switch. A player's strength is the modified value of eir base
strength.") or in a more general way ("If a switch is called the 'base
X' for some X, then an entity's X is the modified value of its base
X.").
—Machiavelli
