Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3472482" data-attributes="member: 2525">It is to anyone who can see the forest for the trees.No it doesn't.&nbsp; The item itself does not roll itself back.&nbsp; It's right there in the text of this item, and it modifies the entire item. It comes as the last statement in the items description, in it's own paragraph, that it functions one time a day.&nbsp; It's clear.Yes, which is also obvious.That is indeed a DM judgement call.&nbsp; How would you normally modify the check if the person knew your motives?&nbsp; I don't think it makes it any more or less a vague rule that this is up to the DM.&nbsp; That sort of question was always up to the DM to modify.I'm sorry guys, but I really think this is the perfect microcosm of a great deal of the flaws in your rules analysis, across many threads.&nbsp; I can only hope that both of you see that your strict constructionist literalism is not beneficial when it gets to this kind of level, at least in this instance.&nbsp; If the rules were written to eliminate even this level of doubt, the rule books would be thousands of pages long, and read like the text of the US Federal Income Tax laws.&nbsp; Because it would always be &quot;just one more sentence of explanatory text&quot; followed by &quot;just one more&quot; to explain the explanatory text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3472482, member: 2525"] It is to anyone who can see the forest for the trees. No it doesn't. The item itself does not roll itself back. It's right there in the text of this item, and it modifies the entire item. It comes as the last statement in the items description, in it's own paragraph, that it functions one time a day. It's clear. Yes, which is also obvious. That is indeed a DM judgement call. How would you normally modify the check if the person knew your motives? I don't think it makes it any more or less a vague rule that this is up to the DM. That sort of question was always up to the DM to modify. I'm sorry guys, but I really think this is the perfect microcosm of a great deal of the flaws in your rules analysis, across many threads. I can only hope that both of you see that your strict constructionist literalism is not beneficial when it gets to this kind of level, at least in this instance. If the rules were written to eliminate even this level of doubt, the rule books would be thousands of pages long, and read like the text of the US Federal Income Tax laws. Because it would always be "just one more sentence of explanatory text" followed by "just one more" to explain the explanatory text. [/QUOTE]

Verification