Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6638525" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Might want to avoid 4e then; &quot;prone gelatinous cube&quot; was one of the salvos of the edition war. The way I see it, any being which is both mobile, and capable of choosing the direction it moves, can be put into a state where it is in some way discombobulated and unable to properly choose the direction it moves. Even if it has no discernible brain matter or preferred &quot;up&quot; direction, it can still be put in a state where mobility is suppressed. Perhaps, as a visual, being bound to the ground by two surfaces at once, so that all its normally-cube-y edges are all bent out of shape.Edit:And to be clear, I logically understand that being inside the area of a darkness spell (or pea-soup-thick fog) would be obscuring to everything. But the way the so-called &quot;natural&quot; language reads, it's only things that are actually inside such obscuration (e.g. inside the fog) to which one is &quot;effectively&quot; blind. Things not inside it aren't--which makes total sense for when you're outside, looking in, but the meaning of the words used (which is what I had always thought &quot;natural language&quot; meant) doesn't say anything at all about when you're inside, looking out--and, therefore, those things could be plausibly read as &quot;visible.&quot;I don't actually think they are visible. That would be stupid. My point is that, instead of just making a nice, clear description, we have this weird (and still pretty jargon-y--&quot;effectively blinded&quot;) circumlocution that *still* leaves something simple, and important, unsaid. Unless I'm forgetting other things from the context of where the errata would appear in the book, which I freely admit is possible; I have a memory like a sieve.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6638525, member: 6790260"] Might want to avoid 4e then; "prone gelatinous cube" was one of the salvos of the edition war. The way I see it, any being which is both mobile, and capable of choosing the direction it moves, can be put into a state where it is in some way discombobulated and unable to properly choose the direction it moves. Even if it has no discernible brain matter or preferred "up" direction, it can still be put in a state where mobility is suppressed. Perhaps, as a visual, being bound to the ground by two surfaces at once, so that all its normally-cube-y edges are all bent out of shape. Edit: And to be clear, I [I]logically[/I] understand that being inside the area of a darkness spell (or pea-soup-thick fog) would be obscuring to everything. But the way the so-called "natural" language reads, it's only things that are actually [I]inside[/I] such obscuration (e.g. inside the fog) to which one is "effectively" blind. Things not inside it aren't--which makes total sense for when you're outside, looking in, but the meaning of the words used (which is what I had always thought "natural language" meant) doesn't say anything at all about when you're inside, looking out--and, therefore, those things could be plausibly read as "visible." I don't actually think they are visible. That would be stupid. My point is that, instead of just making a nice, clear description, we have this weird (and still pretty jargon-y--"effectively blinded") circumlocution that *still* leaves something simple, and important, unsaid. Unless I'm forgetting other things from the context of where the errata would appear in the book, which I freely admit is possible; I have a memory like a sieve. [/QUOTE]

Verification