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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6793401" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, it works very much on natural language.  That it's identified things to use as terms doesn't change the fact that how those terms interact are described using natural language.  The 5e ruleset isn't a proscribed set of hard rules, they're a general description of how things, in general, work, and the DM is supposed to use them as guides for the places they don't.  One of those guiding principles is that the language used is as accessible and understandable as possible, meaning that phrases should be read as if the words mean what they generally mean, and not as intricate, interlocking rules.  5e is fantastic for the decoupling of systems they've managed -- you can change one rule and it doesn't filter across like it did in 3/4e, because the rules are largely decoupled and written in natural language, not game code.For instance, you can rule either way with GFB and it has zero other impacts outside of that spell.So, yeah, when 'natural effects' isn't listed as a game term, you're supposed to use the normal meaning of that to decipher it, not imagine that there's some hidden meaning or interaction with other things that isn't explicit.  Natural effects means it does what it would do any other time it's used, not that there's some unspoken special thing it does because it's used in this situation.  If they meant something other than the natural meaning of the words there, they'd have said so, because that's how they've written this ruleset.  Trying to impute that because this rule over here says this it must mean that this rule here must abide by it slavishly isn't how this ruleset is meant to be read.</blockquote>

Verification