Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 8262412" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Personally, I think too much is made of 5E's use of natural language. It's clear to me that it's structured around certain keywords and that the the illumination categories I referenced up-thread are one such occurrence. This doesn't mean that illuminate doesn't have its natural language meaning. It just means that the keyword is used in a way consistent with that meaning rather than being used as an item of pure jargon. I think the tendency of some readers to deny this under cover of &quot;natural language&quot; is an impediment to comprehension of a text which was, again, obviously, to me, written with that type of structure.As for rules lawyering, I think it's entirely within the spirit of the game to understand issues of lighting, such as the ability of nonmagical light to affect the magical darkness created by the darkness spell, in terms of the game's categories of illumination.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 8262412, member: 6787503"] Personally, I think too much is made of 5E's use of natural language. It's clear to me that it's structured around certain keywords and that the the illumination categories I referenced up-thread are one such occurrence. This doesn't mean that [I]illuminate [/I]doesn't have its natural language meaning. It just means that the keyword is used in a way consistent with that meaning rather than being used as an item of pure jargon. I think the tendency of some readers to deny this under cover of "natural language" is an impediment to comprehension of a text which was, again, obviously, to me, written with that type of structure. As for rules lawyering, I think it's entirely within the spirit of the game to understand issues of lighting, such as the ability of nonmagical light to affect the magical darkness created by the [I]darkness [/I]spell, in terms of the game's categories of illumination. [/QUOTE]

Verification