Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7355909" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, thank you for that, I think.You have to advance the absurd position, so I'm not sure how you can say you're not engaged in twisting words to reach that absurd conclusion if it's required to make the argument.Also, it's reductio.  Pretty sure Reducto is a Potterverse spell.  Yep, it is!  It's the verbal component of the Reducter Curse.  Amusingly, that curse is for blowing things up, so it's at least somewhat related to reductio ad absurdum.  TMYK.Sage advice is not showing what common language means, it's the forum where Crawford provided rules lawyering for rules lawyers.  He only ever returns the literal reading of the rules, because the function of Sage Advice is NOT to provide new guidance or introduce errata or corrections.  In fact, Crawford is quite skilled at answering questions only by quoting back rules and making it look like he answered the question fully by doing so.  Often, though, there are still huge cracks in Sage Advice twit responses.As for the usage of common language, I strongly disagree with your assertion.  An attack is pretty easily understandable, and we wouldn't be having any discussion about breath weapons re: attacks if the language of the rules didn't exist.  And that language is not exclusive in it's phrasing, it's exemplary.  Those in this thread that argue for a broader view of the word attack in the Invisibility spell description do not ignore the exemplary definition of attack -- we acknowledge fully that anything that makes an attack roll is an attack.  We disagree this is the only possible, or even intentional meaning.  Meanwhile the argument you call a reductio ad absurdum is intentionally ignoring the definition of melee attack -- that it's an attack made in hand-to-hand combat (another commonly understood term), usually with a weapon, and a monster makes such an attack with a body part unless otherwise called out.  In other words, it's a different logical basis for argument and not a reductio of the one used for attack and invisibility.  The purpose of this is to say 'see, I can twist things, too!'  The problem is that those making the attack argument are not twisting anything -- they are saying that the exemplary definition of attack in the rules is not exclusive, and they refer to past iterations of the rule to show agreement with their thinking.  Which set of supporting evidence are you using for melee attacks?But, even that said, I really don't see a huge problem with allowing a dragon (or dragonborn) to use their breath weapon as an OA.  I don't see anything that breaks, it's flavorful, and it punches up those abilities in ways I actually like (dragonborn breath attacks are weak, and dragons can always stand to be more terrifying).  My comment, while you're correct I didn't believe [MENTION=60210]jaelis[/MENTION] would play that way, wasn't facetitous in that I really don't have any problem whatsoever with that ruling, and I might even use it myself with some more thought.  The Mirror Image discussion started with me saying I have not issues with Magic Missile interacting like that.  Both of these example show that even attempting to reductio ad absurdum the problem doesn't actually lead to absurd outcomes.  They may not be outcomes you like, but they're not absurd.</blockquote>

Verification