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="Pinotage" data-source="post: 2407130" data-attributes="member: 15194">I agree completely. I was merely pointing out that if you don't interpret the language in any way, or read it in its most basic form without interpretation (getting the RAW by definition), you end up with the result that divine means only divine. RAW is bad!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Language is always open to interpretation and the RAW stated by Scion and others is really interpretation not RAW (interpreting divine to mean including that subset that can include arcane and divine spellcasters, which is reasonble but still an interpretation), hence why I think intent is more important than RAW reading. Because who's to say, unless you're thinking in absolute, your RAW is not any different to somebody else's RAW. Ones of the ways to resolve that it to look at intent.Yes, I agree that it could be a problem if certain players read it and interpret it as Scion and others have indicated. So I fall back on intent, or if you want true RAW, go for absolutes, and bugger the interpretation.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Pinotage</blockquote>

Verification