Hypersmurf said:
Heh, I disagree (let's see if we can get this engine going again!)
While the last SRD quote makes part of the issue clear, I think that
jgbrowning was approaching this from a different perspective from
Hypersmurf. The latter seems to be arguing from a highly technical reading of the rules, in which it's appropriate to build arguments by cross-referencing passages and assuming that every word is written the way it is for a precise, almost programmatic reason.
The former seems to be arguing from a common-sense approach: reading the rules as a whole, and trying to figure out what the gist of them ought to be, and not worrying so much about whether the adjective on page 67 combined with the footnote on page 312 lead to a certain conclusion.
I far prefer the common-sense approach to rules. It makes sense to me thata giant isn't affected by dominate person, so that's how I'll rule it. Whether the word "humanoid" is repeated in paragraph 2 is immaterial: the
gist of the spell is that giants aren't affected by it.
Either approach to the rules is appropriate, I think: programmatic readings are fine, as long as everyone in the group likes them, and the same caveat applies to common-sense rulings. But I like the common-sense approach much more.
Daniel