Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 1797918" data-attributes="member: 1325">And so you argue. Yet, that isn't the way it plays at my table. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Should it say so? When does a sentence (or rule set for that matter) become unwieldy with explaining every dot, every thought, every possible consideration? When does it become obvious that the sentence is referring to undead, only undead, and undead on their own; objects, only objects, and objects on their own? How much effort are we willing to have designers spend, how much spending money are we willing to spend, to have rules that read like Law Books for the Judiciary? And even those are flawed and open to interpretation.By your reasoning, the cockatrice stops the stone golem by... petrifying it? Some of the consequences of this interpretation are just too wierd for me.Nowhere in the description of the Cockatrice's attack does it make mention of the fact that it affects objects at all. Therefore, the effect does not affect undead, nor does it affect constructs, IMC.</blockquote>