Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7354616" data-attributes="member: 6857506">As it turns out, you do not recall correctly. 1e and 2e said that attacks cause the spell to end and they give examples of things that are not attacks.&nbsp; And, as far as I know, they did not anywhere attempt to define 'attack' as a 'game term'.&nbsp; 3.5e uses the &quot;for purposes of this spell&quot; language.As far as the use of the word &quot;attack&quot; to indicate something that causes the spell to end, he did keep the wording.&nbsp; What changed was the separate, additional description of what qualifies as an attack.You contend that that additional description both a) is a comprehensive definition (although that is not the only possible interpretation of the passage); and b) means something other than what it literally says.&nbsp; Given the authors' penchant for loose language, which seems often to rise to outright contempt for clarity, your conclusion is still an arguably reasonable reading.&nbsp; However, your degree of certainty that your interpretation is RAI seems wholly excessive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7354616, member: 6857506"] As it turns out, you do not recall correctly. 1e and 2e said that attacks cause the spell to end and they give examples of things that are [I]not[/I] attacks. And, as far as I know, they did not anywhere attempt to define 'attack' as a 'game term'. 3.5e uses the "for purposes of this spell" language. As far as the use of the word "attack" to indicate something that causes the spell to end, he [I]did[/I] keep the wording. What changed was the separate, additional description of what qualifies as an attack. You contend that that additional description both a) is a comprehensive definition (although that is not the only possible interpretation of the passage); and b) means something other than what it literally says. Given the authors' penchant for loose language, which seems often to rise to outright contempt for clarity, your conclusion is still an arguably reasonable reading. However, your [I]degree of certainty [/I]that your interpretation is RAI seems wholly excessive. [/QUOTE]

Verification