Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1930479" data-attributes="member: 17296">But you see, that's the very heart of my reply. Here you are saying that it's perfectly clear, AND that my initial reading, which I later went to great pains to illustrate, was wrong. Well, I'm not arguing that it was correct, or that you are wrong. All I'm saying is that here, here is a reading which seemed to me to be perfectly clear from the text.  And it's perfectly wrong as well. The explaining it in detail was to show just how very different my reading of the text was than yours, which is all about, and only about how it's not "perfectly clear". I even went back and added an edit, well before any of the following replies, that stated I wasn't espousing my interpretation as correct, merely stating it, esplaining what I read, which I had thought was requested earlier. But I'm not twisting the words... I'm pointing out the essense of where I was reading the spell differently. Which has entirely to do with the concept of "two". One obviously not obvious (definition of obvious: Cannot be overlooked) interpretation is that it's as you (and others here) are espousing, which I'm not even pretending to say is incorrect and indeed have been going to some pains to point that out, is that ANY two of ALL of the targets cannot exceed that limit. Another interpretation which I know is plainly suggested, and I know this due to the fact that I know several people who have interpreted it this way, is that no two of TWO can exceed that range. This statement here indicates a simple lack of imagination or understanding of basic spellcraft. Of course magic is a tool, and of course it's 'semi-sentient'. If it weren't it couldn't work. It's not a "hammer" type tool. Well, in some cases it clearly IS. Fireball is quite similar to hammer. Magic missile, on the other hand, requires some higher functions in your tool. And anyone can clearly see that this also requires some higher functioning. Or else it wouldn't have complex limitations like "no two of which", a limitation that clearly has to have some factor to determine of indicate that there are indeeed more than two things which do. Otherwise it would have said ... "go to point X and explode". Now, I can imagine two functions which can easily see the "no two of which" that is in this spell. That there are only two could be a lack of imagination on my part, so feel free and indeed encouraged to point out additional interpretations.One is the way I stated above, that it goes to one, then leaps to the second... then from the second leaps to the third, etc. Under that program "no two of which" is clearly determined by how far the magic can jump from target to target, and the only "intelligence" that has to be programmed in is the one that keeps track of the multiple targets. (Note: It doesn't need to keep track of the first target, YOU supply that at the beginning of the spell. It "could", of course, but that would be a waste of magical energy)The second way I can imagine is the burst with a "only hit these X" command, where it goes to point X and explodes, but only hits the targets it's told to hit within the radius of it's potential explosion. More complicated than a simple "explode there" command... but you can save some of the energy of the explosion and use that for the semi-sentient function of determining targets. But I digress... my main and only point was simply to illustrate that, no matter what others seem to be saying, it's not "perfectly clear", insupport of Vodoo's statement previous. To be perfect in it's claritly, it could not lend itself so readily to being misread/misinterpreted in the way I did above.  Which I only illustrated so thouroughly because I thought I was being asked to.</blockquote>

Verification