Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Full Bleed" data-source="post: 7133344" data-attributes="member: 89831">Absolutely true.&nbsp; And it's the thrust of the interpretation that excludes the Sorc from bending their own luck.The questions are:1)&nbsp; How are people actually using the ability despite the syntax?&nbsp; I'm finding many examples--out of the context of challenging this interpretation--where it's pretty clear that *many* people are allowing Sorcerers to bend their own luck.&nbsp; In the examples I've seen, there is never an explicit acknowledgement that they are ignoring the raw... so it seems more likely that they've simply overlooked the exclusion because it lacks an explanation why it would be that way (or they are simply interpreting &quot;another&quot; differently).2)&nbsp; Is it, perchance, just &quot;unfortunate&quot; syntax where the author failed to state the obvious (that the Sorcerer could bend his own luck) in lieu of highlighting that the Sorcerer can also bend the luck of *another* creature they can see?Taking my cake example above another way:&nbsp; If you're sitting at a table where everyone has a piece of cake and I give you an ability that says, &quot;With this ability you can steal a bite of cake from another piece of cake you can see&quot; would you assume that you can no longer take a bite from your own cake because I used the word &quot;another&quot;?And here's &quot;another&quot; example (that due to its existence does not exclude earlier examples)... when you look at the description of Lay on Hand it says:Could I not argue that it says that the Paladin can only use their LoH on a &quot;creature&quot; they can touch&quot;?&nbsp; That it fails to explicitly include themselves in the description?&nbsp; How much more clear would it have been for the author to say, &quot;You can touch yourself or any creature&quot;?&nbsp; Or did they just assume that no one would attempt to exclude the paladin like, perhaps, we're supposed to assume that the Sorcerer is not excluded from being able bend their own luck?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Full Bleed, post: 7133344, member: 89831"] Absolutely true. And it's the thrust of the interpretation that excludes the Sorc from bending their own luck. The questions are: 1) How are people actually using the ability despite the syntax? I'm finding many examples--out of the context of challenging this interpretation--where it's pretty clear that *many* people are allowing Sorcerers to bend their own luck. In the examples I've seen, there is never an explicit acknowledgement that they are ignoring the raw... so it seems more likely that they've simply overlooked the exclusion because it lacks an explanation why it would be that way (or they are simply interpreting "another" differently). 2) Is it, perchance, just "unfortunate" syntax where the author failed to state the obvious (that the Sorcerer could bend his own luck) in lieu of highlighting that the Sorcerer can also bend the luck of *another* creature they can see? Taking my cake example above another way: If you're sitting at a table where everyone has a piece of cake and I give you an ability that says, "With this ability you can steal a bite of cake from [B]another[/B] piece of cake you can see" would you assume that you can no longer take a bite from your own cake because I used the word "another"? And here's "another" example (that due to its existence does not exclude earlier examples)... when you look at the description of Lay on Hand it says: Could I not argue that it says that the Paladin can only use their LoH on a "creature" they can touch"? That it fails to explicitly include themselves in the description? How much more clear would it have been for the author to say, "You can touch yourself or any creature"? Or did they just assume that no one would attempt to exclude the paladin like, perhaps, we're supposed to assume that the Sorcerer is not excluded from being able bend their own luck? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification