Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Brennen" data-source="post: 6373189" data-attributes="member: 553">Except touch-range spells also carry a level of codification, and always have. It's defined in the explanation of Range of the general rules of spells, and then presented in the very gamey portion of the spell block. It's not repeatedly described in the natural language section of the spell's description except to describe the spell's effect on the creature touched. So, not a good example. And I really don't see how describing in the individual spells in question that it can be cast and you can take another action is any less gamey. You're still talking about actions on your turn in a game. And by describing the abilities separately, you either run into confusion when interacting with other such abilities, exploits, or end up repeating the rules of their interaction for each instance. Say I'm a rogue/cleric. Can I attack, use Cunning Action and cast Healing Word all on the same turn? Or do all those and cast Sanctuary and Magic Weapon, too? If not, then you have to clarify that for each and every one of those ability/spell descriptions.What I hear you asking for is this:Apple: An apple is type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an apple, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time. Orange: An orange is a type of sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. If you have an orange, you can't eat another sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food at the same time..As opposed to:fruit: the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seeds and can be eaten as food. You can only eat one fruit at a time. Apple: An apple is a fruit. Orange: An orange is a fruit.Is classifying things as "fruit" too gamey? No, I don't think so. Natural language and efficient language aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.</blockquote>

Verification