Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3217321" data-attributes="member: 19675">Abbreviated as in its not the OED or its reasonable equivalent.For instance, the PHB glossary has a definition of &quot;target&quot;...which is about 60 words short of the definition I can find in my unabridged dictionary.&nbsp; Nor are common words like &quot;run&quot; or &quot;and&quot; defined.Only those words and terms with special meanings within the confines of the game are defined, much like I described &quot;sigma&quot; earlier.And, like a definition of &quot;sigma&quot; (and some of the other words and terms), no term is fully described to its fullest.If I look up &quot;Cistercian Order&quot; in my unabridged dictionary, I find the definition &quot;a monastic order, a stricter branch of the Benedictine Order, established in 1098 at Citeaux, France.&quot;Is there more to them than that?&nbsp; Of course-&nbsp; there are over 900 years of details that are not included in that definition- but that doesn't make it any less (nor lesser) a definition.&nbsp;Because, as I have repeatedly stated, WotC is sloppy with language throughout their books.&nbsp; To try to interpret the rules with that level of scrutiny is to introduce unintended &quot;rulings&quot; into the game- one of the primary reasons why, for me and the guys I game with (a bunch of computer programmers, a guy with a math degree, and neuropsychologist), RAW is just a starting point.For example, &quot;Natural Weapon&quot; is defined as a creature's body part that deals damage in combat.&nbsp; Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages.&quot;RAW, this definition does not exclude fists, feet, knees, and the other body parts of PCs, and there are (non-glossary) sections of the 3.X PHB that have been revised from their 3.0 form that include &quot;fists&quot; as natural weapons.And yet, WotC maintains that &quot;fists&quot; are not natural weapons except for the special case of Monks, Kensai or PC classes that expressly say so (I asked).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 3217321, member: 19675"] Abbreviated as in its not the OED or its reasonable equivalent. For instance, the PHB glossary has a definition of "target"...which is about 60 words short of the definition I can find in my unabridged dictionary. Nor are common words like "run" or "and" defined. Only those words and terms with special meanings within the confines of the game are defined, much like I described "sigma" earlier. And, like a definition of "sigma" (and some of the other words and terms), no term is fully described to its fullest. If I look up "Cistercian Order" in my unabridged dictionary, I find the definition "a monastic order, a stricter branch of the Benedictine Order, established in 1098 at Citeaux, France." Is there more to them than that? Of course- there are over 900 years of details that are not included in that definition- but that doesn't make it any less (nor lesser) a definition. Because, as I have repeatedly stated, WotC is sloppy with language throughout their books. To try to interpret the rules with that level of scrutiny is to introduce unintended "rulings" into the game- one of the primary reasons why, for me and the guys I game with (a bunch of computer programmers, a guy with a math degree, and neuropsychologist), RAW is just a starting point. For example, "Natural Weapon" is defined as a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." RAW, this definition [i]does not[/i] exclude fists, feet, knees, and the other body parts of PCs, and there are (non-glossary) sections of the 3.X PHB that have been revised from their 3.0 form that include "fists" as natural weapons. And yet, WotC maintains that "fists" are not natural weapons except for the special case of Monks, Kensai or PC classes that expressly say so (I asked). [/QUOTE]

Verification