Little Known Rules of D&D

[Fifth Element]

The second sentence in the Fly example doesn't require the first sentence to make sense. You cast Fly, and the subject floats downward for 1d6 rounds.

The second sentence makes no sense if you're on the ground when you cast the spell. It doesn't stand on its own in a meaningful way. It requires context.

"First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments..." has meaning by itself. It can be read by itself, and understood. Not that you should necessarily do that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Again, we agree in the interpretation, but we must realize it is an interpretation, since the RAW are unclear.

This simply couldn't be more clear.

It seems even that is in dispute

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The second sentence makes no sense if you're on the ground when you cast the spell.

It makes as much sense as "First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" in a case where the subject doesn't have any.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

It makes as much sense as "First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" in a case where the subject doesn't have any.

The target is "Dead creature touched".

Unless there are creatures that don't have ability scores, your example is precluded by the details of the spell.

 

[Fifth Element]

It seems even that is in dispute

Indeed, I disagree with both of you in that you both state that there is one correct way to read the rules in this case. In actuality, there is ample ambiguity.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The target is "Dead creature touched".

Unless there are creatures that don't have ability scores, your example is precluded by the details of the spell.

There are creatures with ability scores, but no racial adjustments. Humans, to choose an obvious example.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

There are creatures with ability scores, but no racial adjustments. Humans, to choose an obvious example.

True. It should state that the racial adjustments, if any, should be eliminated, to be more clear. It doesn't say that. But how would that change the reading?

Eliminate the ability adjustments? Well, this subject doesn't have any, so that step clearly doesn't apply. What's the trouble?

 

[Al'Kelhar]

No, those are two separate sentences; you can't simply conflate them...

It's unclear at best.

That's an unusual interpretation of written English. Sentences in the same paragraph deal with the same subject matter, and are intended by their author to be read together in connection with that subject. If the author did not want two sentences to be read as connected elements of a whole, he or she would have written them not merely as separate sentences, but as separate paragraphs.

Ask yourself - what is the natural, ordinary meaning of the text, not some artificially contrived interpretation intended to prove a point. Consider the following statement:

"I saw a bus yesterday. It was yellow."

What colour was the bus I saw yesterday? By the interpretation advanced above, who knows? The two sentences are unrelated, and the subject of the second sentence is "it", not "the bus I saw yesterday".

This kind of interpretation of the RAW irks me greatly, because it attempts to divorce the text of the rules from their context. It is a 19th-Century style of legislative interpretation which is viewed with disfavour and contempt by modern jurists. I never interpret the rules simply by reference to the text in a vacuum.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Hypersmurf]

Eliminate the ability adjustments? Well, this subject doesn't have any, so that step clearly doesn't apply. What's the trouble?

Exactly. If the subject is on the ground when the spell is cast, the 'float downwards' step clearly doesn't apply. What's the trouble? ... and the sentence makes sense in isolation. But that still doesn't make it the right way to read it.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

"I saw a bus yesterday. It was yellow."

What colour was the bus I saw yesterday? By the interpretation advanced above, who knows? The two sentences are unrelated, and the subject of the second sentence is "it", not "the bus I saw yesterday".

"It" is a pronoun. "It is yellow" makes no sense in isolation. "Eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" makes sense in isolation. The sentences have two different subjects. In your example, they do not.

This kind of interpretation of the RAW irks me greatly, because it attempts to divorce the text of the rules from their context.

I completely agree with you. All rules require interpretation. RAW as a concept is really a myth. However, many posters have an idea that there is one right way to interpret all rules (which is, of course, their way), which is not true in most cases.

In this case, I agree that Hyp's interpretation makes the most sense. But it is an interpretation, since rules text cannot stand on its own.