Travel Domain: Escape a grapple?

[drnuncheon]

If you think of it as an example of part of what you could be avoiding, it makes sense.

See my dispel magic example - if you think of 'magic' as an example of part of what you could be dispelling, it makes sense, right?

Come on. If I say 'this effect makes you immune to normal fires', are you going to claim that you're immune to all fire, because normal is just an example? Again, why wouldn't I just say 'this makes you immune to fire'?

If your reasoning is correct, they must have put the word magical in because they like to say it, because the sentence is both shorter and clearer without that word. Does that make any sense at all? No!

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?

Well, it certainly opens up that can of worms, doesn't it? If 'magical' is just an example in one place, how can you be sure that it's not just an example anywhere else? Do we just consult the book of evilbob to know?

J

 

[Nail]

Both sides have been discussed very clearly. Now we are waiting on a reply from customer service....

...and I don't know wheather to laugh or cry.

Instead, I will go to the water cooler regardless of managerial effects that impede my movement as if I was affected by the spell "Dispel Boss".




...does that mean my boss is dispelled?

 

[drnuncheon]

"Our hike will continue regardless of bad weather." Gee, that seems straight forward, doesn't it? But it's not.

Sure it is. You just keep trying to expand it to say things that it's not.

All that quote says is that bad weather will not stop the hike. It says nothing about anything else - the loss of a shoe, getting lost on the way to the hiking trail, or the death of all the hikers.

Will the loss of a shoe stop the hike? That statement doesn't apply, so we go to the 'standard rules' we have for determining such. In the case of the hike, that'd be common sense ("Put the shoe back on, Bob.") In the case of the grapple, that'd be...the grapple rules.

J

 

[Lamoni]

Well, it certainly opens up that can of worms, doesn't it? If 'magical' is just an example in one place, how can you be sure that it's not just an example anywhere else? Do we just consult the book of evilbob to know?

I thought it was clear that we were discussing the word magical because it was preceded by the phrase "regardless of..." Regardless of definately includes whatever follows it. Therefore there is no debate whether the travel domain works against magical effects that restrict movement. All the confusion comes from whether regardless of, was intended to mean only what followed it.

I am confused how you have changed the topic of the discussion to focus only on the word magical while ignoring the preceding words. We don't need to modify 'magical' anywhere else. But any other rule that includes a 'regardless of...' clause is open to equal suspicion of what the intent was.

 

[Lamoni]

Will the loss of a shoe stop the hike? That statement doesn't apply, so we go to the 'standard rules' we have for determining such. In the case of the hike, that'd be common sense ("Put the shoe back on, Bob.") In the case of the grapple, that'd be...the grapple rules.

No... in the case of dimensional lock, you would go to the spell freedom of movement for clarification and see that it did not apply. For the case of a grapple, the clause wouldn't apply. It doesn't say anything about non-magical things. You say that you would go to the grapple rules. Others say that you would go to the spell that was referenced. Either could be right.

I am not trying to argue one way or the other. I am only trying to argue that you can interpret it either way and either way could be correct. The thing is... people that say they think it does allow you to escape grapples acknowledge that it could mean something differently. I don't know why those that believe it doesn't apply to grapples are blinded to the fact that the phrase could possibly mean something else.

edit: I apologize for my tone. I think I might take a break before I start offending people... (maybe it is too late).

 

[Artoomis]

Sure it is. You just keep trying to expand it to say things that it's not.

All that quote says is that bad weather will not stop the hike. It says nothing about anything else - the loss of a shoe, getting lost on the way to the hiking trail, or the death of all the hikers.

Will the loss of a shoe stop the hike? That statement doesn't apply, so we go to the 'standard rules' we have for determining such. In the case of the hike, that'd be common sense ("Put the shoe back on, Bob.") In the case of the grapple, that'd be...the grapple rules.

J

"It says nothing about anything else..."

Exactly!!

And in the case of Freedom of Movement - that'd be the Freedom of Movement rules.

The real point is that folks are attempting to make exact that which is inexact. The language is inexact - that's a fact. Look at the definitions. It was a poor choice no matter what the intention.

Lamoni has it exactly right. Both interpretations are valid. Period. Perhaps customer service will give us an "official" answer, perhaps not. We'll see.

 

[Caliban]

"...you can act normally regardless of..." is rather inexact and vague and could mean, in this instance:

"...you can act normally in spite of such things as ...."

or

"...you can act normally when your movement is restricted, but only when restricted by magic, ...."

The fact is that the sentence structure chosen here is not one that should be used when attempting to spell out a very specific rule. Let's go back to the example of bad weather not stopping a hike.

"Our hike will continue regardless of bad weather." Gee, that seems straight forward, doesn't it? But it's not.

Does this mean:

"Our hike will continue in spite of such things as bad weather." This would mean other things might prevent the hike, but not things less sever than bad weather.

This is fairly obvious what is meant in context, I think, but the language used could just as easily mean:

"Only bad weather will not prevent our hike." This would mean that ONLY bad weather will prevent the hike. Death of all the hikers will not, for example, prevent the hike!!

I hope this example show you how poor the choice of "regardless" was in this instance.

The point, of course, is that one cannot hang one's hat on the term "regardless" because, as used hear, it could mean either that this domain power works vs. magic only or works just the same as Freedom of Movement.

It is, quite simply, poorly written.

No, your example shows nothing of the kind. Despite your attemps to confuse the issue, the text of the travel domain still reads very clearly.

"Our hike will continue regardless of bad weather." is very clear. The ONLY thing it addresses is bad weather, and does not apply to anything else. Other things may or may not prevent the hike from continuing.

"Our hike will continue regardless of bad weather, as if we had an ATV." means that during bad weather, the hikers will act as if they had all terrain vehicles. It does not speak to any other circumstance, even if there are other circumstances where acting as if you had an ATV would be helpful.

Same thing with the Travel domain power. It only refers to one circumstance, and you are trying to make it refer to other circumstances that are not mentioned anywhere in the text.

I still can't see any reasonable arguement for your interpretation.

 

[evilbob]

No, your example shows nothing of the kind. Despite your attemps to confuse the issue, the text of the travel domain still reads very clearly.

Well, not to be rude, but it obviously doesn't read clearly if we're having a 4 page discussion on the issue.

I still can't see any reasonable arguement for your interpretation.

So you believe that there is no way the writers intended for this ability to work as the spell they mentioned in the description, and made a rather large adjustment to the power of the spell by simply leaving out part of the description of the spell, with no further qualifing text - as opposed to the idea that they simply misplaced a modifier that could be interpreted in a misleading way? Don't get me wrong - if you believe that, that's fine; you certainly have a case, as Lamoni has been saying. But you honestly don't see how the other interpretation seems reasonable?

 

[Lamoni]

I just found it funny. The subject of this thread is, "Travel Domain: Escape a gapple?" and every time I looked at it I just read grapple without ever noticing the spelling error... until now. It is a good thing that I am not on the WotC editing team. The books would be infinitely worse than they are now. Right now, I think they are pretty good.

 

[drnuncheon]

"It says nothing about anything else..."

Exactly!!

And in the case of Freedom of Movement - that'd be the Freedom of Movement rules.

Exactly wrong!

We are not determining whether freedom of movement applies to grapples. (It does, clearly.) We are determining whether the travel domain applies to grapples.

If the travel domain does apply, then we use the freedom of movement rules. If it does not, then we use the standard grapple rules.

If the travel domain doesn't apply, then the freedom of movement rules don't come into it at all, so we obviously can't use them to determine whether the travel domain applies or not.

J