Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 2435675" data-attributes="member: 23094">No, logic doesn't dictate that, because if they meant all divinations, then the extra explanatory text is extraneous and confusing.&nbsp; Moreover, because of the way English grammar work, the following two sentences are not identical:andNotice the added comma?&nbsp; It is exactly the difference between:I like George Martin's book, A Feast for Crows.--vs.--I like George Martin's book A Feast for Crows.In the first sentence (which corresponds to the modified case), you have sufficient information within the first statement: &quot;George Martin's book.&quot;&nbsp; The comma separates a clause which is completely unnecessary to evaluate the meaning of the sentence, because, the way it is written, George Martin has written only one book, which, by the way, is titled A Feast for Crows.In the second sentence (which corresponds to the actual rules text), you do not have sufficient information within the first statement to evaluate its meaning.&nbsp; In this case, you must further limit the set of all GM's books to determine about which the author is speaking.&nbsp; The way this sentence is written, George Martin has written many books, and of them, I like a particular one.&nbsp; Which one?&nbsp; A Feast for Crows.So, back to the rules text of the Nondetection spell.If it were meant to block all Divination spells, then &quot;by divination spells&quot; would be sufficient information, and the remainder of the sentence would be set off in a comma - it would be, as far as the meaning of the sentence is concerned, superfluous information.It is not, however.Therefore, &quot;by divination spells&quot; is not sufficient information to determine the meaning of the sentence and the examples are part of the limits placed on the set of &quot;divination spells.&quot;&nbsp; Nondetection, then, specifically blocks certain kinds of divination spells: those which are like &quot;clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.&quot;Just like A Feast for Crows is not superfluous information in the second sentence above, the examples are not superfluous here.The question you must then answer is: &quot;Is spell Y like clairX, locate object, or a detect spell?&quot;If the answer is yes, then nondetection works against it.If the answer is no, then nondetection does not work against it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 2435675, member: 23094"] No, logic doesn't dictate that, because if they meant all divinations, then the extra explanatory text is extraneous and confusing. Moreover, because of the way English grammar work, the following two sentences are not identical: and Notice the added comma? It is exactly the difference between: I like George Martin's book, [i]A Feast for Crows[/i]. --vs.-- I like George Martin's book [i]A Feast for Crows[/i]. In the first sentence (which corresponds to the modified case), you have sufficient information within the first statement: "George Martin's book." The comma separates a clause which is completely unnecessary to evaluate the meaning of the sentence, because, the way it is written, George Martin has written [b]only one book, which, by the way, is titled [i]A Feast for Crows.[/i][/b] In the second sentence (which corresponds to the actual rules text), you do not have sufficient information within the first statement to evaluate its meaning. In this case, you must further limit the set of all GM's books to determine about which the author is speaking. The way this sentence is written, [b]George Martin has written many books,[/b] and of them, I like a particular one. Which one? [i]A Feast for Crows.[/i] So, back to the rules text of the Nondetection spell. If it were meant to block all Divination spells, then "by divination spells" would be sufficient information, and the remainder of the sentence would be set off in a comma - it would be, as far as the meaning of the sentence is concerned, superfluous information. It is not, however. Therefore, "by divination spells" is not sufficient information to determine the meaning of the sentence and the examples are part of the limits placed on the set of "divination spells." Nondetection, then, specifically blocks certain kinds of divination spells: those which are like "clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells." Just like [i]A Feast for Crows[/i] is not superfluous information in the second sentence above, the examples are not superfluous here. The question you must then answer is: "Is spell Y like clairX, locate object, or a detect spell?" If the answer is yes, then nondetection works against it. If the answer is no, then nondetection does not work against it. [/QUOTE]

Verification