Hypersmurf said:
Out of several hundred core spells, only one has this unique targeting capability, even though about a dozen other spells using the same word to depict enemies use a different meaning of the word.
DND Core - Enemies are unfriendlies
Bane Spell - Enemies are unfriendlies (by default)
All Other Core Enemy Spells - The definition of enemies changes and they become foes or opponents and their attitude towards you is irrelevant. The definition of enemies explicitly changes to one of someone you are fighting as opposed to someone who wishes you ill.
Why?
If the definition of enemies is unfriendlies, why would about a dozen spells EXPLICTLY change that definition in their description whereas only one spell still uses it (and then, only by default)?
Why wouldn't they only use the word foes or opponents in their text if that is what they really meant?
This is a HUGE dichotomy (even though we hadn't really noticed it previously).
It seems a lot more likely that the designers weren't even thinking seriously about this at all. The reason is probably due to the fact that two of the nine cases occur the majority of the time: AA and EE.
On top of that, the Bane spell does not EXPLICTLY keep that definition. The description does not go into a lot of detail, it is just three sentences (rather short for a DND spell) and the spell defaults to that definition of enemies (by literal reading), it does not explicitly reinforce that definition.
But a DM reading the Bane spell (without looking up the glossary term enemy in the PHB) could easily change that to foes in a game. It is only the "rules lawyer" DM who might allow Bane to target "the elf who appears to be a friend, but is really the guy who has been killing off the PCs family".
So, we have a one liner glossary definition in the PHB and about a dozen spells that explicitly do not use that definition. Also, that definition is only one out of two that people normally use for the word. It appears that the designers used the attitude game mechanic for enemies because it was convenient, not necessarily because they wanted to restrict the game in that manner.
The game itself has more examples where the definition of the word changes than examples where it does not, hence, a literal reading of that word shouldn't be used since the game designers themselves do not appear to be using it as a game mechanic for rules.
The attitude of most Americans before 9/11 was that they did NOT have ill will towards Al Qaida. But, that did not stop Al Qaida from deciding that all Americans were their enemies.
Both uses of the word are valid.
I pick my enemies (by my attitude towards them). My enemies pick themselves (by their attitude towards me).
If the designers want the game to be restricted to the literal meaning of the word, they should not have put in a dozen examples where it does NOT mean that. IMO. That makes the game confusing.
Player: "What do you mean enemies does not mean foes?"
DM: "It says it in the glossary."
Player: "Then how come enemies means foes in all of these other spells."
DM: "Never mind those, they are anomalies."
Player: "Huh?"
