Reincarnate and its interpretation

[Jeff Wilder]

I disagree because reading the second sentence as dependent on the first is in keeping with the rules for the English language.

As necessarily dependent? This is simply incorrect. I've already provided one other counter-example -- the first two sentences of miracle -- and there are countless others, both in the rules and pretty much any body of writing in the English language.

 

[Jhaelen]

Awww. Didn't you see the smiley?!

All, right, lemme see:
You believe you're free to insult everyone however you please if you put a smiley behind your insults? Interesting!

Could please some moderator do the sensible thing and kick this ***** ******* ? Otherwise I might be tempted to write a few paragraphs with lots of smileys

 

[Jeff Wilder]

All, right, lemme see:
You believe you're free to insult everyone however you please if you put a smiley behind your insults? Interesting!

Jhaelen, meet Irony. Irony, this is ... hey, Jhaelen? Jhaelen? I'm sure that navel lint is fascinating, Jhaelen, but I'm trying to introduce you to Irony.

Could please some moderator do the sensible thing and kick this ***** ******* ? Otherwise I might be tempted to write a few paragraphs with lots of smileys

Oh, you're just so braaaaave!

 

[Rel]

Jhaelen, meet Irony. Irony, this is ... hey, Jhaelen? Jhaelen? I'm sure that navel lint is fascinating, Jhaelen, but I'm trying to introduce you to Irony.

Oh, you're just so braaaaave!

According to my reading of the rules, we'll see you in a week, Jeff.

 

[Elethiomel]

As necessarily dependent? This is simply incorrect. I've already provided one other counter-example -- the first two sentences of miracle -- and there are countless others, both in the rules and pretty much any body of writing in the English language.

No, but neither is it necessary to read them as independent. Thus both interpretations are equally valid (in a "strict RAW" sense) in my eyes, and none of them "change the RAW".

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Hi guys,

I think the fundamental disagreement here is about how "literal" one should be when reading the "rules as written". I can see where Jeff is coming from. As far as I can tell, he isn't saying he agrees with the result of the literal interpretation of the wording of reincarnmate, he's just saying that that happens to be the literal interpretation. When arguing about the "Rules As Written", one is arguing about their literal interpretation, notwithstanding that there may be a consensus they don't say perhaps what the drafters intended them to say.

MCVincent had some good rules which, when read literally lead to some absurd results:

1) “A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” Taking the Rules As Written literally here would imply that spiked gauntlets prevents someone from disarming any of your weapons.
2) “A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.” RAW implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself
3) “Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” RAW implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.
4) "Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small." RAW implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.
5) "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). " Taken literally, this could allow someone below 0 hp to have their hp increased when drowning.
6) "Suffocation: A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. " Strictly as written, the suffocation rules would technically apply to non-breathing creatures.
7) "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding". As written; natural attacks, unarmed strikes, armor spikes and animated shield bashes cannot benefit from haste’s extra attack.
8) "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. ". So a rogue could not hide from the enemies while being observed by his allies.
9) Strictly by RAW, a monk is not given proficiency with unarmed strikes (i.e. a monk does not have proficiency with simple weapons, which unarmed strike is).
10) The jump skill description says "Long Jump: A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream. ", so one could not long jump over something that is not a gap.
11) Although ranged attacks are listed as provoking AoO’s in the Standard Actions table, full attacks (included ranged full attacks) do not provoke according to the Full-round actions table.
12) No rule says you’re prone when you lose consciousness.

I can certainly understand where Jeff is coming from. However, as I mentioned in my original post, the literalist interpretation of laws (= rules) without regard to context and purpose is little used these days in the realm of statutory interpretation (at least in Common Law countries), for the very reason that it leads to absurd and unintended consequences. The question about reincarnate is not so much a question of the interpretation of the text of the spell, so much as a question about the method of interpretation used to interpret the text of the spell.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Will]

Well, it's good to reflect that agreeing to disagree does not mean you have to agree that the other point of view has any merit or sense what-so-ever, but that you recognize no ground is going to be made and will pop off to do something more productive, like grab a beer.

I'm with the really-obviously-absolutely-correct Smurf and co.


Have a beer.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm with the really-obviously-absolutely-correct Smurf and co.

I'm with you, so long as by "correct" you mean "obviously the best interpretation of the rules" rather than what's literally written in the rules (which can produce wonky results in some cases as illustrated above).

 

[kreynolds]

Yes, it is, and it still says to remove racial adjustments. All of them.

Now, the way you have set up the compared questions in a fictionally perfect manner (i.e. they certainly do not appear that way at all in the spell description, nor or any spell description I have ever seen, thus they are fictional in that you created them to support this specific argument), I will admit that it pushes me closer, but not onto the spot, of your viewpoint. However, since your example is indeed fictional, I still do not see the applicable comparison.

What you tried to do is give me a fictional example to see if my thinking is flawed. It isn't.

 

[Nifft]

I'm with you, so long as by "correct" you mean "obviously the best interpretation of the rules" rather than what's literally written in the rules (which can produce wonky results in some cases as illustrated above).

I'll agree that there are several theoretically possible readings, but IMHO both the literal and best readings are identical in this case. The issue isn't figurative language.

Cheers, -- N