D&D 5E (2014) Scabbard of... Silence?

[Dannyalcatraz]

"You're doin' it all wrong boy!"

"You're s'posed to be SLAYING 'em, not SAVING 'em! Heah, let me SHOW you how it's DONE, boy. (Just little light in the evil department, I do believe.)"

 

[Noctem]

Where do you see that it cannot be torn from the inside? It says, simply, 'if torn -> bad things.' You would think that, given the bad things, they would have said so if they really meant 'if torn' to be 'if torn, but not from the inside, that's intornable.' They didn't, leaving it as 'if torn.' Inside, outside, frontside, backside, WEST SIDE!, doesn't matter. 'If torn -> bad things.'

This is a combination of the Argument from Silence fallacy (it doesn't say it doesn't work like it did before in 3.5e, so it can) and the Munchkin fallacy (it doesn't say I can't, so I can).. Agree to disagree. I won't be replying again so as to avoid derailing the thread further.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a combination of the Argument from Silence fallacy (it doesn't say it doesn't work like it did before in 3.5e, so it can) and the Munchkin fallacy (it doesn't say I can't, so I can).. Agree to disagree. I won't be replying again so as to avoid derailing the thread further.

Argument from silence, eh? You do know that means that you interpret silence as assent or dissent, right? How that fits, I don't know. I'm going to assume you mistook that for the broader argument from ignorance, of which argument from silence is a subset, and that I'm saying that since we don't know it can be torn from the inside, it must be true. The problems here are many. One, your stated usage (which is the wrong construction for an argument from silence to begin with) says I'm citing previous editions -- something I did not do at all. Secondly, I was countering your argument of 'it cannot be pierced/torn from the inside' by asking for your rational, because the actual rule says nothing about from which side the bad can be pierced. In fact, in not placing restrictions on a general statement, the usual interpretation would be that there are no restrictions. But I can go with 'it doesn't say, so we don't know', which, amusingly, shoots your entire argument in the foot. Own goals are rare, but worth appreciating, I think.

As for your "munchkin fallacy," that isn't a thing except for messageboard warriors coming up with cute phrases to dismiss arguments they can't actually address. But, assuming it means what you say it does, I'm never said that it doesn't say so. What I said was that it does say so. It says 'torn'. It gives no indication that such tearing is impossible from inside the bag. That's your invention, and an wholly unsupported one at that. You've made something up, and, when called out to show where you could possibly gotten it, have decided to throw bad fallacy arguments around and dodge out.

 

[Morlock]

"You're s'posed to be SLAYING 'em, not SAVING 'em! Heah, let me SHOW you how it's DONE, boy. (Just little light in the evil department, I do believe.)"

Hahahaha! Excellent improv. I tip mah hat to you suh!