Rules Clarification: Ray Deflection

[Brace Cormaeril]

I would rule that, by RAW, all means all, but I would not run it that way in any game I DM and opt to have the spell simply deflect rays.

Kinda' hard to Read "All" as Written, when that word does not appear in the description of the spell.

I didn't really need additional evidence that 3.5 was a lame horse, but the fact that one must diagram every sentence in the Spell Compendium to eke out their meaning is telling.

 

[Dandu]

"All means all" is a reference to another issue being debated on this very subforum.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I didn't really need additional evidence that 3.5 was a lame horse, but the fact that one must diagram every sentence in the Spell Compendium to eke out their meaning is telling.

It isn't a must. This board, certain posters in particular, have just gotten annoyingly pedantic as of late, to the point where reading threads is painful.

Spell's text is quite clear on ranged touch, so as Shin said, RAW it stops all ranged touch attacks. But that is really freaking dumb, and by all means houserule it as you said you planned to, it makes more sense that way.

Or take my suggestion and ban the spell completely.

 

[Brace Cormaeril]

It isn't a must. This board, certain posters in particular, have just gotten annoyingly pedantic as of late, to the point where reading threads is painful.

Spell's text is quite clear on ranged touch, so as Shin said, RAW it stops all ranged touch attacks. But that is really freaking dumb, and by all means houserule it as you said you planned to, it makes more sense that way.

Or take my suggestion and ban the spell completely.

Thread drama to which I am not privy. Neat.

The crazy thing is that the spell does NOT protect against the arrows in this case; crazy because it is apparently the consensus, but clearly wrong.