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="HoboGod" data-source="post: 5277087" data-attributes="member: 90920">Oh my god, you're driving this way too hard. You're nitpicking my posts for the slightest of contradictions. I'm telling you I meant the function of line of sight and you're saying that I didn't mean that at all because I used "sight" instead of "line of sight" at one point? Don't tell me what I mean when I say it, I'm the one who said it.  I'm glad to clarify anything I say, I'm confident that communication is a fluid state, I'm only human, and I cannot read your mind. All I ask is that you please attempt to understand what I'm trying to say before trying to attack it.When you speak of closest creature, that's location relative to something else, the meaning is explicit. I'm not sure what that second one is even talking about, give me a page number or something. The rod and blindness entries both indicate to pinpoint a location, explicit meaning. The trap entry of what a location trap indicates that it is of a specific square, explicit meaning. And what's more, a location trap wouldn't necessarily relate to the meaning of location in Detect Magic as a dung beetle and dung pile aren't directly correlated (a dung beetle isn't made of dung and dung pile isn't a pile that rolls dung into balls.)I used the word "notice" in the context of pinpointing their location. I'm not arguing that you can't detect their presence. I'm only arguing that you can't find their exact location.This is the core of our argument, where we are strongly divided. You are allowing a liberal usage of the word "location" as RAW. I am not saying that if it was worded to say "exact location," it would be any better. I'm saying if it were worded in a manner that it describes it AS the exact location. For example, if it were to say "after 3 rounds, this spell pinpoints the location of a hidden or invisible creature," that would be wording it in a manner that it locates the exact location. Such that it doesn't mention anything like that, it makes me wonder if that's what it actually says. Location IS ambiguous.How can I prove ambiguity? That's like saying I have to prove that a creature believed to be scientifically undetectable doesn't exist. The fact that I can interpret it differently means there is ambiguity. I think location can refer to either direction or affirmation of existence within a line of effect. It doesn't necessarily have to pinpoint anything and the very fact that there's nothing that indicates otherwise, I'd say it's pretty ambiguous.EDIT: And in terms of ambiguity, it's close relative "vagueness" is all over the entry on Detect Magic. The entry makes no mention of this spell being usable against creatures or invisible things. Everything else that pinpoints invisible creatures tends to be less vague on the subject.</blockquote>

Verification