Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2036991" data-attributes="member: 3929">No twisting here. I simply missed the part when you mentioned that it was the 3.0 FAQ you have been talking about for the past two pages of thread....Nope, you just clarified that for me in your last post. Didn't miss a thing apparently...And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was still beholden to 3.0 stuff. I thought all that was supposed to have been revised and kept around for those who didn't want to change. So is the 3.0 still "official"? And so are they all reasonable clarifications. I never said your argument wasn't valid at all, I just said that there is enough room to interpret the RAW differently. I'm not saying you're wrong, although I wouldn't play that way, I'm saying we're both right. Both supported by different interpretations of the RAW. Do you think I am attacking you? That was never my intention, surely.Indeed it does. But because there is no spell that cannot be information gathering, then all that does is file it down to Divination spells and effects. But its meaninglessness remains intact. "Divination" is the only word with meaning in there, and "information gathering" is still adrift upon the neglegence of WotC.Considering we're arguing about made-up rules sets for a game designed to allow thirty-somethings to slay dragons wielding magical firebrands, I'd say it's all fairly meaningless. And if you're going to be snarky, then: it's spelled "Oops". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />"When you have the law on your side, argue the law.When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound on the table."<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And that's a technique called "using humor to deflect degredations aimed at your argument style." Did you have that one in your book of techniques?Anyways, I repeat my question: is it so impossible for you to see that Joker and my interpretation of the RAW leads us to believe that not all Divinations are defeated? And that that interpretation of the RAW is a reasonable one?</blockquote>

Verification