Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 9123489" data-attributes="member: 10531">Right now, I'm going on the basic grammar of the text box, which refers to "items" rather than "an item". If their intention or action changes from that in the future, I will be mildly surprised, though not more than mildly. For evaluating the subclass-as-presented in this playtest, I'm going to assume that everything presented in the subclass's section is, in fact, true, and that claims to the contrary actually need evidence; anything else leads to madness.My underlying position is that if the magic items chapter of the revised DMG does not properly serve Brawlers, College of Dance bards, and monks, that's not a problem with the design of those (sub)classes, that's a problem to be corrected in the playtest of the DMG. Declaring that those (sub)classes need to be balanced on the assumption that the designers will fail to revise the DMG properly is premature at best.That's you backing off from your previous assertion of "a singular, specific item", then? In that case, no, I'm not willing to bet on the vague, judgment call difference between "a short line of items" and "some broad thing".No, "equivocation" doesn't include inadvertent ambiguous statements. Merriam-Webster didn't include "deliberate" and "deliberately" for no reason, even if they didn't repeat in in every single clause of the definition, and you can compare <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/equivocation" target="_blank">Cambridge</a> ("a way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth, or something said in this way") or the one of the two senses that Oxford English Dictionary doesn't mark as "obsolete" ("The use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification, with a view to mislead").Seriously, it's a really bad idea to accuse someone of equivocation unless you're intending to accuse them of intentionally trying to mislead.</blockquote>

Verification