Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4113297" data-attributes="member: 2525">Only if your reading is narrow.&nbsp; The FAQ doesn't say &quot;error&quot; or &quot;should be used instead&quot;, those are your words.&nbsp; And since you are a stickler for accuracy and precision, let's stick to what the FAQ says rather than what you read into it.The FAQ explains why adjacent is correct given an assumption of a normal medium sized character.&nbsp; It says: &quot;What the description really means is that a character wielding a spiked chain can attack creatures that are within her natural reach (in addition to those at the normal range of a reach weapon).&quot;It's not saying it's in error, it's saying that the meaning of the rule is in question, and there are at least two competing mutually exclusive interpretations.&nbsp; So when frequently asked &quot;what's this description of this rule mean&quot; he gives the answer &quot;the description really means...&quot;.&nbsp; It's a clarification, not an error, and not a change in rules.&nbsp; It's exactly what FAQs are supposed to do, which is to clarify what things mean when it's initially unclear to enough people that they are often asked about it.In this case, when you change the assumptions then one of the natural interpretations you can reach is correct and the other is not, and the FAQ clarifies which they meant.I know you think you're right, but from my perspective (and I have no dog in this fight) you are reading it too narrow and then telling everyone your narrow reading is the only possible reading.&nbsp; The explanation given is perfectly valid from my read of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 4113297, member: 2525"] Only if your reading is narrow. The FAQ doesn't say "error" or "should be used instead", those are your words. And since you are a stickler for accuracy and precision, let's stick to what the FAQ says rather than what you read into it. The FAQ explains why adjacent is correct given an assumption of a normal medium sized character. It says: "What the description really [b]means[/b] is that a character wielding a spiked chain can attack creatures that are within her natural reach (in addition to those at the normal range of a reach weapon)." It's not saying it's in error, it's saying that the meaning of the rule is in question, and there are at least two competing mutually exclusive interpretations. So when frequently asked "what's this description of this rule mean" he gives the answer "the description really means...". It's a clarification, not an error, and not a change in rules. It's exactly what FAQs are supposed to do, which is to clarify what things mean when it's initially unclear to enough people that they are often asked about it. In this case, when you change the assumptions then one of the natural interpretations you can reach is correct and the other is not, and the FAQ clarifies which they meant. I know you think you're right, but from my perspective (and I have no dog in this fight) you are reading it too narrow and then telling everyone your narrow reading is the only possible reading. The explanation given is perfectly valid from my read of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification