Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6637842" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Personally, I see that as being for the &quot;rabid&quot; (not the word I'd use) simulationists, not the rules-lawyers. Then again, I am perfectly okay with accepting the idea of a prone gelatinous cube, so I may not be defining &quot;rules lawyer&quot; in quite the same way you do.Edit:Also, the thing I find funny about this errata is that a true &quot;natural language&quot; reading would seem to indicate that being surrounded by a cloud of unnatural darkness doesn't prevent you from seeing anything outside it, so it acts more like a column of total invisibility. Unless being inside it makes everything outside it also &quot;obscured by it,&quot; in which case it would seem to be literally verbiage without a point. Other than, as mentioned, the &quot;appeasement&quot; meaning. To clarify my &quot;simulationist&quot; thing above, the appeasement would seem to be, &quot;Okay, okay, we get it--being trapped in thick fog doesn't mean your eyes don't work, it means your eyes have nothing to work with. We get it. Here's a phrasing that doesn't imply your eyes stop working.&quot;I mean, unless there's some kind of extra-special feature or something that only works on people with the Blinded condition? I don't know enough about 5e to respond to that, other than to say that I've never heard of such a feature, nor anything that would exploit it that *couldn't* exploit it with the errata'd text anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6637842, member: 6790260"] Personally, I see that as being for the "rabid" (not the word I'd use) simulationists, not the rules-lawyers. Then again, I am perfectly okay with accepting the idea of a [I]prone gelatinous cube[/I], so I may not be defining "rules lawyer" in quite the same way you do. Edit: Also, the thing I find funny about this errata is that a true "natural language" reading would seem to indicate that being surrounded by a cloud of unnatural darkness [I]doesn't prevent you from seeing anything outside it,[/I] so it acts more like a column of total invisibility. Unless being inside it makes everything [I]outside[/I] it also "obscured by it," in which case it would seem to be literally verbiage without a point. Other than, as mentioned, the "appeasement" meaning. To clarify my "simulationist" thing above, the appeasement would seem to be, "Okay, okay, we get it--being trapped in thick fog doesn't mean your eyes [I]don't work[/I], it means your eyes [I]have nothing to work with[/I]. We get it. Here's a phrasing that doesn't imply your eyes stop working." I mean, unless there's some kind of extra-special feature or something that only works on people with the Blinded condition? I don't know enough about 5e to respond to that, other than to say that I've never heard of such a feature, nor anything that would exploit it that *couldn't* exploit it with the errata'd text anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification