Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2404084" data-attributes="member: 31734">I think the proper analogy with the Good subtype and this item is the following.  Let's assume for a minute that the Good subtype were worded similarly.  I.e. instead of:We would have:In the rewording, consider the hypothetical case where's there's no such benefit to Lawful creatures -- i.e. in the Lawful subtype, it doesn't say that they overcome DR/Lawful.  However, now creatures having both Good and Lawful overcome DR/Good and/or DR/Lawful, but creatures of just Lawful do not.  However, it's clear that the Good subtype description refers to only creatures having the Good subtype, not creatures having other subtypes (i.e. the overcoming of DR only applies to Lawful, not to its other subtypes, if any).  This isn't altering the letter of the rule, it's reading the rule and comprehending it.  It's directly transferrable to the incense description.  When the entire description focuses around divine spellcasters, does it suddenly apply to sorcerers with the Arcane Preparation feat? I say no.  The rules do not need to exhaustively list everything in every sentence for fear that readers will take them out of context.  This is what I feel is happening here.  The opposing view is taking the sentence out of context with the remainder of the paragraph and applying it exhaustively to every other domain.  That's inappropriate.   A general principle of understanding the rules is that they do no more or less than what they say.</blockquote>

Verification