Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 7367538" data-attributes="member: 6796566">And there's your problem.You can't both revert to normal and be turned to dust at the same time. I get that you and Jeremy seem to think that you should read the rule completely literally, you've both made that abundantly clear. The problem is that being that literal--too literal--inevitably leads to nonsensical results. This is why the rule &quot;as written&quot; is ambiguous, because it is pretty obvious that the intent was for wild shape to fortify the druid and make him unkillable, until and unless you exhaust the hit points of both the beast shape and the humanoid character. That's the purpose of words, you know... whether &quot;as written&quot; or &quot;as spoken.&quot; They convey the intent of the speaker or the writer. One of the almost magical aspects of language is that I can ramble on like a drunkard and you can still make sense of what I'm saying, because rather than carefully parse each word in every disjointed sentence, you are understanding the intent.Picking apart the words to reach a literal meaning that is contrary to the speaker or writer's intent is a kind of &quot;gotcha&quot; approach to language which really only serves to start arguments. When you reach the point where you're arguing, with conviction, that a druid character can be both reverted to normal and disintegrated, or that reading a rule in accordance with the intent of its writer is making up a new &quot;house rule,&quot; then maybe it's time to step back and consider what, if anything, you're trying to accomplish here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="epithet, post: 7367538, member: 6796566"] And there's your problem. You can't both revert to normal and be turned to dust at the same time. I get that you and Jeremy seem to think that you should read the rule completely literally, you've both made that abundantly clear. The problem is that being that literal--too literal--inevitably leads to nonsensical results. This is why the rule "as written" is ambiguous, because it is pretty obvious that the intent was for wild shape to fortify the druid and make him unkillable, until and unless you exhaust the hit points of both the beast shape and the humanoid character. That's the purpose of words, you know... whether "as written" or "as spoken." They convey the intent of the speaker or the writer. One of the almost magical aspects of language is that I can ramble on like a drunkard and you can still make sense of what I'm saying, because rather than carefully parse each word in every disjointed sentence, you are understanding the intent. Picking apart the words to reach a literal meaning that is contrary to the speaker or writer's intent is a kind of "gotcha" approach to language which really only serves to start arguments. When you reach the point where you're arguing, with conviction, that a druid character can be both reverted to normal and disintegrated, or that reading a rule in accordance with the intent of its writer is making up a new "house rule," then maybe it's time to step back and consider what, if anything, you're trying to accomplish here. [/QUOTE]

Verification