Little Known Rules of D&D

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

Not at all. As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it. When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers. Not certain racial modifiers. All of them.

What, then, of the preceding sentence that says that Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution might be affected by the new body? Again, simple and straightforward, and in the very next sentence it tells you how ... by adding the modifiers from the chart. Not only does that instruction come in the same paragraph, as it should, it comes in the next sentence, albeit in the second part of a compound instruction.

Can the rule be interpreted two ways? Clearly. Only one of them, however, conforms with the literal text. The other one, as Hypersmurf enjoys pointing out to folks, is a house rule, however much sense it makes.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

I'm sorry, but that floating down bit does not stand on its own. It could be read to mean the subject floats down, through the earth, for 1d6 rounds. The subsequent sentence precludes that, but the second sentence is needed to clarify.

But this isn't really the point. We're arguing semantics. It's really about interpretation, and the fact that rules require interpretation. In most cases, there is one interpretation that is clearly most sensible. This is not always the case.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not at all. As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it. When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers. Not certain racial modifiers. All of them.

Okay, I was relying on Hyp's snipping of your post, which I should not have. I agree that the literal words are clear.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not at all. As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it. When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers. Not certain racial modifiers. All of them.

And the isolated sentence in Fly unambiguously, without qualification, states that the subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds.

Not all of the required information is found within the sentence, however, just as not all of the required information in the Reincarnate spell regarding racial adjustments is found within that one isolated sentence.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm sorry, but that floating down bit does not stand on its own.

Neither does the Reincarnate text, by the same logic.

"You float downward" has meaning. It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.

"Eliminate racial adjustments" has meaning. It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.

-Hyp.

 

[AnonymousOne]

We have but one way to settle this dispute .... gentlemen ... Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Eliminate racial adjustments" has meaning. It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.

This is blatant circular reasoning. You need to show that we're getting the wrong meaning, instead of making the claim for use in the very argument that we're getting the wrong meaning.

The spell functions perfectly well the way Fifth Element and I are reading it. (Which, not coincidentally, is also the way it's literally written.) The spell also functions perfectly well the way you're interpreting it. The only problem is, you're adding restrictions to the text that simply are not there. It's that simple.

Is your interpretation correct? Again (and again), it wouldn't surprise me; the designers have proven over and over that they're not particularly good constructionists. But it's not what the words say.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And the isolated sentence in Fly unambiguously, without qualification, states that the subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds.

Not all of the required information is found within the sentence

Correct. And how do we know this? Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.

however, just as not all of the required information in the Reincarnate spell regarding racial adjustments is found within that one isolated sentence.

You can keep asserting this all you like. It remains false. The sentence has clear, unambiguous meaning, and unlike the fly example you're attached to, reincarnate works fine and makes sense if you read the clear, umambiguous sentence and do what it says to do.

 

[Rvdvelden]

Correct. And how do we know this? Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.

I agree (for once) with Hyp that this should also apply to the reincarnate spell. If you choose to disassociate the "eliminate racial adjustments" sentence from the rest of the text, you're just not following the rules of the (English) language. Not only does the previous sentence refer to which abilities are affected, even the rest of the text of the spell refers to changing the physical effects and leaving the mental effects untouched.

The rules can be ambiguous enough as it is and disregarding rudimentary rules of language is only adding to that problem.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only problem is, you're adding restrictions to the text that simply are not there.

They're right there! In the preceding sentence.

Correct. And how do we know this? Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.

The sentence is completely sensible in isolation. There's nothing wrong with a spell that has the effect "The subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds". We look to the preceding sentence because that's how paragraphs work, not because we end up with nonsense otherwise. We end up with something that doesn't feel like a Fly spell, of course.

Just like in Reincarnate, we have a sentence which makes sense by itself, but which appears in a paragraph with a qualifying sentence... and if we ignore that qualifier, we end up with a spell that replaces your body, yet for some reason affects your mind. Fortunately, since the qualifying sentence is there, that oddity is avoided.

-Hyp.