Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 5248506" data-attributes="member: 57112">You are making a lot of assumptions though, and those assumptions make up your interpretation. Those assumptions (namely, that what is stated in the FAQ for Magic Missile is the be-all end-all of attacks) clearly conflict with what is obviously intended by the authors (ie, Dragon's Breath, Warden's Fury, etc. are attacks), which means you're purposefully aligning yourself with an interpretation that is absolutely wrong according to RAI (far more important, IMO, than the RAW*) for the sole purpose of arguing semantics.*Why do I believe that RAI supercedes RAW? That's simple; the whole purpose of errata (our infamous thread topic notwithstanding) is to bring the RAW in line with RAI. RAI is the ideal; it's what we strive for; and therefore it has to be more important than RAW. I'm sure this argument has been done to death on this board long ago; just dropping my two cents in the bucket.I don't wish to unduly disparage your chosen profession, (as a teacher and a playwright I get plenty enough on both fronts) it's just that I have never once had a positive experience once arguments turn to semantics. As an educator (particularly when educating about difficult or contentious topics), I have seen countless rational and educational discussions and lessons completely derailed by students who insist on bogging things down in semantic arguments. As a playwright, I have seen my words interpreted in so many different ways that I would have never dreamed. I don't believe in such a thing as a common vocabulary, in practically anything, and attempting to create one is an absolute fool's errand. I have only seen it work with the most simple of frameworks. I've seen people argue rules in card games; something as complex as D&D doesn't stand a chance. Oh sure, there's got to be some frameworks established... and vocabulary in general is handy. But attempting to establish something all-inclusive in such a large system will always lead to more confusion and contention; our friends at Wizards proved that in their provided logic for why MM is an attack. Such a definition would necessarily have to include the exceptions, which defeats the purpose of having such a definition in the first place. Is the "initial use" clause absolutely necessary to defining an attack? If so, it isn't possible to reconcile that with the obviously intended encounter weapon attacks of the Warden Forms, without each and every Warden Form being retrofitted into some gaudy, cumbersome power-within-a-power format. Even at best, it would at least require including some ludicrous line (again, inserted into every power) that states: "These attacks count as attacks." Does that really have to be necessary? At some point it becomes no longer worthwhile to bend over backwards to appease the rules lawyers, and we will then be required to make the reasonable judgments on our own.Obviously if people had a better grasp on semantics this wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, which I can only assume is where you're coming from. If that is the case I can completely empathize with you. I did feel the need to expand upon my general contempt for the concept though. No offense intended.</blockquote>

Verification