Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ViciousPenguin" data-source="post: 3333526" data-attributes="member: 25212">I'm only half inclined to agree that this is a matter semantics.  More accurately I suspect that this is a matter of language, and while the rules are not always well defined, the English language generally is.Where 'piece' is not a term of art in D&D, I think it appropriate to fall back on the literal definition of the word when deciding what a 'piece' is in game.  That definition is fairly clear.The fact that a chain can be considered a single 'item' is both factual and irrelevant.  Items can be made of pieces, and the two terms are not universally interchangeable.  The key term used in the description of that spell however is 'a single solid object'.  Perhaps you and I would disagree on this too, but I take 'solid' in this case to mean 'rigid', which a length of chain is not.  A coil of rope is 'solid' too, in so far that it is not 'fluid' or 'gaseous', but I would balk at someone 'shattering' it.  That single link of chain however . . . I have to agree with this conclusion, and for several reasons.  Firstly, as stated above, the fact that items can be made of pieces means that your cod piece can share the same saving throw with your gorget.  Furthermore 'item' is a term of art in D&D.  One can find an entire suit of armor as a single magical item, with no pieces excluded.  Also, the fact that the spell lists the target assupports this.  Items and equipment are both terms of art in D&D and are frequently interchangeable.  For this spell, it is obviously more appropriate for each 'item' to gain a saving throw.If we look deep enough we'll probably find poorly phrased exceptions, but it seems to me that the spells generally do just what their descriptions say they do.  Even with the examples of 'problem' spells given above, we see this to be the case.  The words in those spell descriptions have specific meanings, whether defined in game or in the dictionary, and when those meanings are understood the outcome is fairly predictable.  I think that the problem of 'semantics' comes in when we want the spell to do something other than what it says it does.  In that case some of us tend to stretch or skew the meaning of words to our liking.  If everyone around the table can agree that "this is what the spell ought to do" then fine.  But if such a consensus cannot be reached than the literal meaning of the description (or DM decree) should be respected.- Vicious Penguin</blockquote>

Verification