Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gardens &amp;amp; Goblins" data-source="post: 7355654" data-attributes="member: 6846794">To be fair, with regards to RAI, one thing that needs to remembered is that 5th edition is an update as much as an original work. There are many aspects of spells, classes and rules artifacts have been included for as much as 'legacy' and to maintain familiarity.As such, trying to assess the intent of the design of say, Invisibility - how far back do we go? The first printing? Is this where the 'intent' of the spell can be found? Do we try to understand the intent of the original designer? Or perhaps we focus on the author's intent today? Something else?With this in mind, JC updated and translated the spells (or he did, as far as I know) but it was never 'his' spell originally. Perhaps he simply wanted to update and translate the spell into 5E editions terms. This can be done without him having any particular desire to produce anything other than the technical. Or perhaps he did have his own intent, a desire to update and modify Invisibility to create a spell which amongst other things allows dragons to remain Invisible while attacking with their breath weapons. Or perhaps, like a copy of a copy of a copy, some resolution was lost.I'm fine with that to be honest. This is where the DM comes in as the 'Keeper of the Rules' - if the table/DM has issue of course - catch any perceived kinks and iron them out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gardens & Goblins, post: 7355654, member: 6846794"] To be fair, with regards to RAI, one thing that needs to remembered is that 5th edition is an update as much as an original work. There are many aspects of spells, classes and rules artifacts have been included for as much as 'legacy' and to maintain familiarity. As such, trying to assess the intent of the design of say, Invisibility - how far back do we go? The first printing? Is this where the 'intent' of the spell can be found? Do we try to understand the intent of the original designer? Or perhaps we focus on the author's intent today? Something else? With this in mind, JC updated and translated the spells [I](or he did, as far as I know)[/I] but it was never 'his' spell originally. Perhaps he simply wanted to update and translate the spell into 5E editions terms. This can be done without him having any particular desire to produce anything other than the technical. Or perhaps he did have his own intent, a desire to update and modify Invisibility to create a spell which amongst other things allows dragons to remain Invisible while attacking with their breath weapons. Or perhaps, like a copy of a copy of a copy, some resolution was lost. I'm fine with that to be honest. This is where the DM comes in as the 'Keeper of the Rules' - if the table/DM has issue of course - catch any perceived kinks and iron them out. [/QUOTE]

Verification