Travel Domain: Escape a grapple?

[evilbob]

Semantics 1, Interpretation 0!

Oh well! *mumble mumble house rule mumble mumble*

 

[Artoomis]

Gee, what do you know.

I just wish an answer from WOTC Customer Service actually counted as support.

Too true. At best, I'd count agreement from them as a hollow victory, marginally better than nothing. Every now and then, though, we get a good, well-reasoned answer that gives you actual support for their poistion. I was hoping....

Actually, I would have accepted a well-reasoned answer supporting either side of this debate. Too bad all we got was a pat answer.

Still, for those who want something "official," this is it. Well, sort of.

 

[allenw]

It seems like an ability that read, "You can remove diseases, regardless of being caused by magic as the remove disease spell." would be more appropriate for this discussion.

But that doesn't use similar syntax to the actual PHB/SRD sentence, so it's not a useful example. It would only be applicable if the rules text said something like "You are unaffected by effects that impede movement, regardless of their being magical, as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement." Which it doesn't, hence this argument.
In the sentence above, "regardless" is modifiying the state of "being magical," which is possessed by some "effects that impede movement."
In the rules text (below), "regardless" is modifying "magical effects that impede movement," and hence not "non-magical effects that impede movement."

The rules text says:
"You can act normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement."
An equivalent and parallel statement using the Remove Disease example would be:
"You can remove magical diseases as if you had cast Remove Disease." No "regardless," since it wouldn't fit into the sentence's syntax, due to the differences between being avoiding being prevented from doing something yourself (acting normally) and actually doing something for someone else (removing disease).

p.s. Customer Service agrees? I feel so... unclean.

 

[Lamoni]

But that doesn't use similar syntax to the actual PHB/SRD sentence, so it's not a useful example.

Sorry. I didn't actually spend any time formulating the statement to be a perfect representation of what was written in the SRD. I just made an improvement over what was originally written. Giving a statement without the Regardless if clause wasn't very applicable. I added "regardless if..." to it. I know it wasn't perfect. It wasn't supposed to be. I wasn't trying to use it as a key point in my argument.

Will wonders never cease: the answer is in! I suspect the orginal intent was the opposite of what is here, but, nonetheless, here is the customer service answer (at least, today's answer).

Thanks Artoomis. Well, there you have it. As official of an answer as we could hope to get. I agree that I wish they would give some reasoning behind their answer. But no one can say that they didn't give what was originally intended. And since that is the best we can hope to get, it should probably hold up okay in the rules forum.

The debate of what was really intended, what is best, or how it really should be can continue in the house rules. Or here, but it starts to lean more to a house rules issue.

 

[evilbob]

In the rules text (below), "regardless" is modifying "magical effects that impede movement," and hence not "non-magical effects that impede movement."

So why isn't it valid to interpret "regardless of magical effects" as modifying "act normally," meaning: You can act normally - regardless of magical effects - as if you were affected by the spell? Is that not just as valid?

 

[James McMurray]

Reply from customer service

Let me preface this by saying I am fully in the camp of those who say Travel only affects magical impediments. The language is very clear, and if it wasn't meant to apply only to magic they could have left out the entire phrase.

Here is the reply I got from Customer Service.

Dear James,

The ability granted by the Travel domain only works against magical effects. It does not prevent a grapple like the regular spell does. Good Gaming!

*******************************************
Chris
Wizards of the Coast - Customer Support
Website: <http://www.wizards.com>
Game Support Phone: 1-800-324-6496
Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 6 PM PST
Corporate Phone: (425) 226-6500
*******************************************
*Please quote this email in your reply*

-----Original Message-----
From: Charter [mailto:jtmcmurray@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:31 AM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: D&D Rules Question: Travel Domain

​

Does the travel domain help someone to escape grapples, or does the reference to magical affects mean that it only helps against magical affects?

TRAVEL DOMAIN

Granted Powers: For a total time per day of 1 round per cleric level you possess, you can act normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement. This effect occurs automatically as soon as it applies, lasts until it runs out or is no longer needed, and can operate multiple times per day (up to the total daily limit of rounds).


Thanks,
James McMurray
​

 

[Caliban]

So why isn't it valid to interpret "regardless of magical effects" as modifying "act normally," meaning: You can act normally - regardless of magical effects - as if you were affected by the spell? Is that not just as valid?

To me, that would mean exactly the same thing. Putting the '-regardless of magical effects-' in the middle if the sentence like that indicates that it is a qualifier. So your sentence still means that the domain ability only references the spell in regard to magical effects.

 

[allenw]

So why isn't it valid to interpret "regardless of magical effects" as modifying "act normally," meaning: You can act normally - regardless of magical effects - as if you were affected by the spell? Is that not just as valid?

I agree that "Regardless of magical effects" is modifying "act normally." How can you act normally? Regardless of magical effects. What about non-magical effects? No information, hence no change in your ability to act normally. And "as if you were affected by the spell" modifies "You can act normally regardless of magical effects," or possibly just "regardless of magical effects." I think you're reading it as just modifying "You can act normally," but I don't think that's a valid parsing.

 

[evilbob]

I think you're reading it as just modifying "You can act normally," but I don't think that's a valid parsing.

Ah, yes, thanks. That's my question.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ah, yes, thanks. That's my question.

Please excuse me if I'm being redundant by misinterpreting your statement but, as Allenw says, no, that's not a valid interpretation. Normal; normally. Neither words have meaning except in reference to something. To say "My sister was acting normally yesterday" conveys no meaning because because it does not give a context in which "My sister" has been acting normally IN. Or at the very least, it implies that there was some manner in which my sister might not generally be acting normally. Which is ambiguous because it is not given. What context does this travel domain power give for normally? "regardless of magical effects". Thus, you can't interpret the clause referencing Freedom of Movement to modify "act normally" without in turn referencing normally to mean "regardless of magical effects."

OFF TOPIC:

Oh, I see, so what you're saying there is that any time there is an error or misinterpretation in the book, we should immediately change anything else that is similar, anywhere else in the book, right? So now that sundering is not a standard action, I'll just make sure I erase the "standard action" header on that table in the PHB and replace it with "all of these are attack actions, too."

To be fair, that table is in direct conflict with the text of sunder which specifies a melee attack. As the Sage states regarding table-text conflicts: The text takes precedence.

There's no conflict in the Travel domain description. And no reason to think the stated definition is wrong.