Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6441046" data-attributes="member: 7006">The really issue here is not whether any of us think the rule is clear or not clear... the issue is that the designers and developers at WotC apparently thought it was clear enough that how they wrote it was sufficient.&nbsp; They had in their heads what the spell was supposed to do... they wrote the spell's instructions a certain way to get that across (so they thought) while also retaining brevity... and apparently no one offered up the other interpretation-- or at least not enough offered up the differing interpretation to make them think what they wrote wasn't clear enough.So CapnZapp is right that it probably could/should be repaired (or at least clarified as to the explanation they were trying to get across).&nbsp; If they meant it one way, but enough other people keep inquiring as to the legitimacy of the other way... they will probably get around to making official what their intent behind the spell was supposed to be.And even if they don't... at least the spell is clear enough that it seems everyone is coming to one of the two conclusions.&nbsp; So it is completely usable at any particular table.&nbsp; The only time an issue would crop up would be during organized play events and a player was bringing their PC that uses the spell and interpreting it the opposite way that the DM was at the table they sat at.&nbsp; Then you have to have a bit of the negotiation as to the method of the spell for that specific game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6441046, member: 7006"] The really issue here is not whether any of us think the rule is clear or not clear... the issue is that the designers and developers at [i]WotC[/i] apparently thought it was clear enough that how they wrote it was sufficient. They had in their heads what the spell was supposed to do... they wrote the spell's instructions a certain way to get that across (so they thought) while also retaining brevity... and apparently no one offered up the other interpretation-- or at least not enough offered up the differing interpretation to make them think what they wrote wasn't clear enough. So CapnZapp is right that it probably could/should be repaired (or at least clarified as to the explanation they were trying to get across). If they meant it one way, but enough other people keep inquiring as to the legitimacy of the other way... they will probably get around to making official what their intent behind the spell was supposed to be. And even if they don't... at least the spell is clear enough that it seems everyone is coming to one of the two conclusions. So it is completely usable at any particular table. The only time an issue would crop up would be during organized play events and a player was bringing their PC that uses the spell and interpreting it the opposite way that the DM was at the table they sat at. Then you have to have a bit of the negotiation as to the method of the spell for that specific game. [/QUOTE]

Verification