Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Joe Liker" data-source="post: 6386307" data-attributes="member: 6777505">First, Google is not a dictionary. Second, the second half of that Google &quot;definition&quot; is a list of synonyms and related words from a thesaurus, which is not remotely the same as a definition.&quot;Following&quot; means &quot;coming after.&quot; Period. It does not carry any additional connotation about how soon it comes after, or whether other things occur in between.EDIT: I just realized maybe it's the article (&quot;a&quot; versus &quot;the&quot;) that is throwing you off. When we use a definite article (&quot;the&quot;), we are referring to a specific instance of a thing. In the case of &quot;the following X,&quot; we sensibly take it to mean the very next X in line. But that is because the article forces us to narrow it down to a single instance of X, not because &quot;following&quot; inherently requires any such restriction. If we use the indefinite article (&quot;a&quot;), it can be any of a number of instances of the thing. So &quot;a subsequent X&quot; means &quot;any X that comes after this one.&quot; As the spell in question says &quot;a subsequent round&quot; and not &quot;the subsequent round,&quot; it can refer to any round after the one in which the previous target died.Furthermore, there are many examples of spells you hold until you are ready to discharge them. Length of time isn't really relevant unless you go past the stated maximum duration of the spell, which, in this case, was intentionally increased between the playtest and release so that you could &quot;juggle&quot; it longer.So again, I completely agree that some clarifications would be helpful, and I also agree that Twitter is the last place that should happen. Mearls is batting well below .500 on the accuracy of his remarks there, and I'm confident many of his so-called &quot;rulings&quot; will be reversed in the official errata.However, that doesn't make the game harder to play or DM. I don't participate in organized play, so maybe I don't have a good sense of how delicate the game becomes in that venue. But my guess is, it's not that big a deal. If I did participate, I would do so with the understanding that not all DMs rule the same way on every little thing, and I'd learn to work around it. None of the rules discussed in this thread would destroy a character if the ruling were reversed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Joe Liker, post: 6386307, member: 6777505"] First, Google is not a dictionary. Second, the second half of that Google "definition" is a list of synonyms and related words from a thesaurus, which is not remotely the same as a definition. "Following" means "coming after." Period. It does not carry any additional connotation about how soon it comes after, or whether other things occur in between. EDIT: I just realized maybe it's the article ("a" versus "the") that is throwing you off. When we use a definite article ("the"), we are referring to a specific instance of a thing. In the case of "the following X," we sensibly take it to mean the very next X in line. But that is because the article forces us to narrow it down to a single instance of X, not because "following" inherently requires any such restriction. If we use the indefinite article ("a"), it can be any of a number of instances of the thing. So "a subsequent X" means "any X that comes after this one." As the spell in question says "a subsequent round" and not "the subsequent round," it can refer to any round after the one in which the previous target died. Furthermore, there are many examples of spells you hold until you are ready to discharge them. Length of time isn't really relevant unless you go past the stated maximum duration of the spell, which, in this case, was intentionally increased between the playtest and release so that you could "juggle" it longer. So again, I completely agree that some clarifications would be helpful, and I also agree that Twitter is the last place that should happen. Mearls is batting well below .500 on the accuracy of his remarks there, and I'm confident many of his so-called "rulings" will be reversed in the official errata. However, that doesn't make the game harder to play or DM. I don't participate in organized play, so maybe I don't have a good sense of how delicate the game becomes in that venue. But my guess is, it's not that big a deal. If I did participate, I would do so with the understanding that not all DMs rule the same way on every little thing, and I'd learn to work around it. None of the rules discussed in this thread would destroy a character if the ruling were reversed. [/QUOTE]

Verification