Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2615491" data-attributes="member: 17296">You may be right. I mean that it does spell out that the spell operates in a specific manner, and therefore instead of there being an implication (implicit?) operation in a different manner, there is a confirmed one, to indicate this I used the word Explicit. (Now I'll look it up on Dictionary.Com&quot;Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. &quot;Well, I'll agree that it can't be &quot;fully and clearly&quot; expressed if some people are disagreeing as to the interpretation.&quot;Readily observable&quot;I'll use that definition... of course in doing so I'm being arrogant and stating that it's &quot;readily observable&quot; that you're wrong. (I'll hold to my arrogance for a bit and stick by that statement on the outside, but in these parenthesis I acknowledge your point). Emphasis mine:Here I'm going to go back to the dictionary:Discharge:&quot;To relieve of a burden or of contents; unload. To unload or empty (contents). &quot;And disagree with your statement. It clearly (and it is pretty clear this time I think) does not discharge, in that the spell's still active after a touch... It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but it's a pertenent part of my point of view, that it does not act like other touch attack spells act, it's not the same, and doesn't use the same mechanic. You're not holding a charge with this spell, instead this spell enchants your hands so that your next X touch attacks will have the specified effect.No, it doesn't. However my point that it's not a 'hold the charge' spell invalidates this particular line of arguement, and instead turns this most important point to &quot;does it say anywhere that it DOES &quot;discharge&quot;?And, of course, a reading of the definition of the word discharge will reveal that it does not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ARandomGod, post: 2615491, member: 17296"] You may be right. I mean that it does spell out that the spell operates in a specific manner, and therefore instead of there being an implication (implicit?) operation in a different manner, there is a confirmed one, to indicate this I used the word Explicit. (Now I'll look it up on Dictionary.Com "Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. " Well, I'll agree that it can't be "fully and clearly" expressed if some people are disagreeing as to the interpretation. "Readily observable" I'll use that definition... of course in doing so I'm being arrogant and stating that it's "readily observable" that you're wrong. (I'll hold to my arrogance for a bit and stick by that statement on the outside, but in these parenthesis I acknowledge your point). Emphasis mine: Here I'm going to go back to the dictionary: Discharge: "To relieve of a burden or of contents; unload. To unload or empty (contents). " And disagree with your statement. It clearly (and it is pretty clear this time I think) does not discharge, in that the spell's still active after a touch... It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but it's a pertenent part of my point of view, that it does not act like other touch attack spells act, it's not the same, and doesn't use the same mechanic. You're not holding a charge with this spell, instead this spell enchants your hands so that your next X touch attacks will have the specified effect. No, it doesn't. However my point that it's not a 'hold the charge' spell invalidates this particular line of arguement, and instead turns this most important point to "does it say anywhere that it DOES "discharge"? And, of course, a reading of the definition of the word discharge will reveal that it does not. [/QUOTE]

Verification