Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
It's the first of either his or Monte's rants I've read that I totally disagreed with.
Well, maybe not totally: it CAN be confusing if rules use incorrect terms.
But dammit, if the party sees a group of elementals headed up by a woman casting spells, I'll call her a sorceress if I want to -- and I don't care if she's actually a wizard. And if WOTC was so concerned about confusion from misusing terms, why didn't they call the school of magic "beguilement" or something similar? Enchantment and charm both have many meanings beyond the simple meanings of mind-affecting magic.
He kind of reminds me of everyone's least favorite high-school English teacher. The one who marks your paper down for having split infinitives in it, because the teacher has some vague understanding that in the vague past some prescriptive grammarians with a vague grasp of Latin realized that a split infinitive is impossible to ever create in a language with one-word infinitives, and somehow thinks that this requires a rule against splitting infinitives in English.
Ranting about rules requires a thorough knowledge of the rules -- and I think Reynolds has demonstrated that knowledge. Heck, he BETTER have a thorough knowledge of the rules.
But this was a rant about language, and I think he hasn't demonstrated an entirely clear understanding of how language works.
Daniel
ranting himself
Well, maybe not totally: it CAN be confusing if rules use incorrect terms.
But dammit, if the party sees a group of elementals headed up by a woman casting spells, I'll call her a sorceress if I want to -- and I don't care if she's actually a wizard. And if WOTC was so concerned about confusion from misusing terms, why didn't they call the school of magic "beguilement" or something similar? Enchantment and charm both have many meanings beyond the simple meanings of mind-affecting magic.
He kind of reminds me of everyone's least favorite high-school English teacher. The one who marks your paper down for having split infinitives in it, because the teacher has some vague understanding that in the vague past some prescriptive grammarians with a vague grasp of Latin realized that a split infinitive is impossible to ever create in a language with one-word infinitives, and somehow thinks that this requires a rule against splitting infinitives in English.
Ranting about rules requires a thorough knowledge of the rules -- and I think Reynolds has demonstrated that knowledge. Heck, he BETTER have a thorough knowledge of the rules.
But this was a rant about language, and I think he hasn't demonstrated an entirely clear understanding of how language works.
Daniel
ranting himself