Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 1840325" data-attributes="member: 5122">Which is an utterly absurd conclusion, though arrived at through logical progression.  That was, in fact, my point.First, look at the two most common meanings of "resist" (from Merriam-Webster Online): (1) to exert oneself so as to counteract or defeat; (2) to withstand the force or effect of.Note that these two definitions of the same simple word have substantially different meanings.  The first meaning encompasses only an exertion, an attempt at fending something off.  The second meaning clearly embodies the idea that the exertion was successful.If reading "all spells that opponents resist with saving throws" in one fashion results in an absurd result, then a reasonable person considers the possibility that it should be read in another fashion.  Especially given that the language can easily mean at least three different things, depending upon how proper a grammarian the writer was.First, it could be read with the second common meaning, which leads to the result that the voiding of invisibility becomes contingent upon whether or not the subject of the invisible caster's spell succeeded on his saving throw, not on whether he was entitled to a saving throw or required to make a saving throw.  (I.e., it depends on whether the spell was "resisted" or instead had full effect.)Hopefully everybody sees that, logically, that is an absolutely valid reading of the rule.  Also hopefully, everybody sees that it's an absurd reading of the rule.Second, the language could be read with the first common meaning of "resist," meaning that what is required to void invisibility is only the attempt to resist.  This branches into two possible meanings:The Hypersmurf Interpretation:  Not only must the target be permitted a saving throw against an invisible caster's spell, the target must, in fact, choose to attempt that saving throw.  While a little bit of a stretch, this is also a logical interpretation, if one doesn't consider the effects of the interpretation.The Wilder Interpretation:  The target must only be permitted a saving throw, but the spell in question must be somehow offensive (damaging, hindering, hampering, et cetera) in use and intent.Note one absurdity of the Hypersmurf Interpretation: a creature with the ability to see invisible, ranks in Spellcraft, and the Special Quality of "healed by magical fire" could watch an invisible mage prepare to cast a fireball, recognize the spell, and choose not to attempt a saving throw against the spell.  (Declining the saving throw would be the smart thing to do!)  Note the outcome for the mage, under the Hypersmurf Interpretation: he remains invisible!There are many possible permutations of these factors that could easily arise in a real game, leading to same ridiculous outcome.Hopefully most folks -- maybe even Hypersmurf -- recognize the absurdity of that interpretation, so will look to the Wilder Interpretation, which fits perfectly with the understanding of the rules the vast majority of us have and have had.I realize that you probably believe you made an argument in the above paragraph.  You did not.  You stated disagreement, and then you made assertions as to how the rules function, without offering any logical support.A fireball cast into an area the wizard believes to be unoccupied is no more an "offensive combat action" against a hapless person in the area than a nuclear test on an atoll is an "offensive combat action" against the shipwrecked sailor who crawled his way atop the atoll 10 minutes before the test.</blockquote>

Verification