Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7587269" data-attributes="member: 6802178">@ jgsugden, 5ekyuThe 'logic' offered by those supporting this argument was that having a strength score guarantees the ability interract with physical objects.No rule states this is right, or wrong.In using the word 'incorporeal' the writers of the rules deliberately invoked it's literal meaning in context. Either that or they kept on using the wrong term, repeatedly for every incorporeal creature in the game without anyone picking up the mistake through the editing process.A little unlikely I think you will agree...Just because they then assign a strength score to it does not in any way make what it is assigned to as a descriptor less incorporeal and therefore a non-literal version of the word - a thing which is insubstantial but which can nevertheless interact with the substantial.I have no problem with a DM interpreting this either way in their game. House rules can be as they wish, or the room left for individual determination in this rule-less area can be exercised and it will be fine either way.But I do wish people arguing that their interpretation of the thing is the way the rules are written when they are not would admit it and stop seeking faux-official validity. Words on the other hand DO have a literal meaning and ignoring that when you decide you are the only one who truly understands the truth of the matter is not a credible position to take.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliburn101, post: 7587269, member: 6802178"] @ jgsugden, 5ekyu The 'logic' offered by those supporting this argument was that having a strength score guarantees the ability interract with physical objects. No rule states this is right, or wrong. In using the word 'incorporeal' the writers of the rules deliberately invoked it's literal meaning in context. Either that or they kept on using the wrong term, repeatedly for every incorporeal creature in the game without anyone picking up the mistake through the editing process. A little unlikely I think you will agree... Just because they then assign a strength score to it does not in any way make what it is assigned to as a descriptor less incorporeal and therefore a non-literal version of the word - a thing which is insubstantial but which can nevertheless interact with the substantial. I have no problem with a DM interpreting this either way in their game. House rules can be as they wish, or the room left for individual determination in this rule-less area can be exercised and it will be fine either way. But I do wish people arguing that their interpretation of the thing is the way the rules are written when they are not would admit it and stop seeking faux-official validity. Words on the other hand DO have a literal meaning and ignoring that when you decide you are the only one who truly understands the truth of the matter is not a credible position to take. [/QUOTE]

Verification