Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2963194" data-attributes="member: 19675">3W, see post #8.&nbsp; I don't rule all references to &quot;ground&quot; mean natural earthen ground, just when it makes sense in the context of the spell as a whole.Here, its a druidic creation earth spell, with imprecise flavor &amp; rules text.&nbsp; I have no problem limiting &quot;ground&quot; in such a context to mean natural earthen ground.And as for ground being used to mean &quot;whatever you happen to be standing on&quot; in the RAW, EVT illustrates that sometimes they don't.&nbsp; Instead, they spell it out explicitly.Its part and parcel of the English language- occasionally we use words that have a specific meaning as a general term, despite that when used that way, such words can cause confusion.Which is part of why, as I pointed out in post #8, I rarely use RAW to guide spell interpretation.&nbsp; I take the spell as a whole- its rules text, its flavor text, and if need be, even the class that is casting it into account- when trying to interpret imprecise language in it.&nbsp; (After all, RAW, it would be indisputible based on the language in certain spells that a monk's unarmed strikes are also natural weapons...)This spell is, IMHO, a classic poorly worded spell.on</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 2963194, member: 19675"] 3W, see post #8. I don't rule all references to "ground" mean natural earthen ground, just when it makes sense in the context of the spell as a whole. Here, its a druidic creation earth spell, with imprecise flavor & rules text. I have no problem limiting "ground" in such a context to mean natural earthen ground. And as for ground being used to mean "whatever you happen to be standing on" in the RAW, EVT illustrates that sometimes they don't. Instead, they spell it out explicitly. Its part and parcel of the English language- occasionally we use words that have a specific meaning as a general term, despite that when used that way, such words can cause confusion. Which is part of why, as I pointed out in post #8, I rarely use RAW to guide spell interpretation. I take the spell as a whole- its rules text, its flavor text, and if need be, even the class that is casting it into account- when trying to interpret imprecise language in it. (After all, RAW, it would be indisputible based on the language in certain spells that a monk's unarmed strikes are also natural weapons...) This spell is, IMHO, a classic poorly worded spell.on [/QUOTE]

Verification