Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sekhmet" data-source="post: 5656581" data-attributes="member: 97602">Have you ever heard a paraplegic say &quot;treat me as if I still had use of my legs&quot; because he was &quot;handicapable&quot;? Has a doctor ever told you &quot;we're going to treat this as if a preexisting condition were present because of your family history&quot;? What about a favourite sport's coach that tells you to &quot;envision a whole in the opposing team's defense as if no one were there and just go for it&quot;? &quot;As if&quot; indicates that the statement is contrary to reality. The Rogue is not actually doing it, he's emulating it. The same way he emulates having the &quot;Spellcasting&quot; class feature of the Wizard. He doesn't have it, but he still gets to use the scrolls and wands that he'd like to. The same way he emulates being an Elf. He's a human, but who cares? The shiny shortbow thinks he's an Elf, so why the hell not? &nbsp;In the case of the chalice, the Rogue is saying, &quot;Hey. Check out this divine energy, bro,&quot;&nbsp; and then drinking. &nbsp;The Cleric says, &quot;Dude, I can totally do that,&quot; when the chalice checks to see if he has access to Turn Undead. &nbsp;The description (under no possible meaning of those words) simply does not say that a use is expended when a person drinks from it. It checks for the class feature and then works. The Rogue is emulating the class feature for the purposes of that check. &nbsp;That is the entire point of UMD. The example is not contradictory in any sense of the word. I believe quite firmly that those forums and threads were not only incapable of understanding simple English, but most likely also inflicting some romantic idea of &quot;the spirit&quot; of the rules. &nbsp;Let me make it perfectly clear that when a rule says &quot;X&quot;, it does not mean &quot;Y&quot; or &quot;Z&quot;, it means &quot;X&quot;. This is a perfect example of that. All other items that expend uses (such as the Runestaff) very precisely state it as such. There is no such distinction in the description of the chalice.&nbsp;&nbsp;As an aside, the descriptive text was most likely removed because no such item exists in the DMG, not because of an apparent majority of people's inability to understand English.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sekhmet, post: 5656581, member: 97602"] Have you ever heard a paraplegic say "treat me as if I still had use of my legs" because he was "handicapable"? Has a doctor ever told you "we're going to treat this as if a preexisting condition were present because of your family history"? What about a favourite sport's coach that tells you to "envision a whole in the opposing team's defense as if no one were there and just go for it"? "As if" indicates that the statement is contrary to reality. The Rogue is not actually doing it, he's emulating it. The same way he emulates having the "Spellcasting" class feature of the Wizard. He doesn't have it, but he still gets to use the scrolls and wands that he'd like to. The same way he emulates being an Elf. He's a human, but who cares? The shiny shortbow thinks he's an Elf, so why the hell not? In the case of the chalice, the Rogue is saying, "Hey. Check out this divine energy, bro," and then drinking. The Cleric says, "Dude, I can totally do that," when the chalice checks to see if he has access to Turn Undead. The description (under no possible meaning of those words) simply does not say that a use is expended when a person drinks from it. It checks for the class feature and then works. The Rogue is emulating the class feature for the purposes of that check. That is the entire point of UMD. The example is not contradictory in any sense of the word. I believe quite firmly that those forums and threads were not only incapable of understanding simple English, but most likely also inflicting some romantic idea of "the spirit" of the rules. Let me make it perfectly clear that when a rule says "X", it does not mean "Y" or "Z", it means "X". This is a perfect example of that. All other items that expend uses (such as the Runestaff) very precisely state it as such. There is no such distinction in the description of the chalice. As an aside, the descriptive text was most likely removed because no such item exists in the DMG, not because of an apparent majority of people's inability to understand English. [/QUOTE]

Verification