Travel Domain: Escape a grapple?

[Caliban]

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

It reads clearly, some people just want it to do more than it says it does.

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?

I think the writers intended for this ability to work exactly as the spell they mentioned, but only when it comes to dealing with magic. They didn't "leave out" any part of the description of the spell, since they didn't include the spell description at all. They said that you are protected from magical impediments, and then told you how that protection works - the same as the spell. The spell protects agains both magical and non-magical effects, but the domain ability only refers to the magical effects. Since it references the magical effects specifically, that's what it means.

If they meant for the protection to apply to any impediment and not just magical ones, then they would not have put the "magical" qualifier in there.

I simply don't find the opposing interpretation reasonable, since it basically requires you to assume that they meant something other than what they said, with no real support for this assumption from the context of the sentence or paragraph.

 

[evilbob]

Exactly wrong!

I could be wrong here in speaking for someone else, but I believe what Artoomis was saying was that since the statement about hiking "regardless of" weather "says nothing about anything else," by that same logic you cannot draw a conclusion about whether or not the ability applies to normal effects from the statement "regardless of magical effects" - since it "says nothing about anything else."

And as for my own opinion, I'd say the "common sense" or "standard rules" answer that you're looking for still falls under the "Options, Not Restrictions" credo. If they didn't expressly forbid normal effects, when the language is unclear you should assume that they are included in the ability's functional range of influence.

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...

I didn't even notice the error until I read your whole post, and even then it took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about.

 

[Will]

I'm struck by imagining an ability with 'Removes magical diseases, as the Remove Disease spell'

Would people think the ability should remove all diseases?

 

[allenw]

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?

I think you're conflating two questions here:
1: What was the designer's intent?
2: What is the literal meaning of the text as written?

On Question 1, I agree we don't know, and have no good way of knowing, short of asking the designers (who don't tend to answer such questions much these days). Personally, I think it likely that the designers *did* intend the ability to work vs. (for example) Grapples, and just wrote the text poorly, as they did in other cases.

Question 2, however, is what Caliban is addressing, and while it is obviously possible to disagree, there *is* a right answer to Question 2, and several wrong ones. And Caliban's answer is the right one.
The sentence in question, "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," is completely unambiguous in its literal meaning. It only contains and conveys information about "magical effects that impede movement," not about other types of effects that impede movement; therefore, it has no effect on our understanding of non-magical effects that impede movement, such as grappling. And it doesn't appear in a context that changes or adds to its meaning, apart possibly from the context of being in a series of books known for their inexact use of language.

 

[evilbob]

It reads clearly, some people just want it to do more than it says it does.

Funny you should say that. As an experiment, I showed the text to two different friends of mine who are knowledgable about D&D. I gave them no preface whatsoever, let them read the text, and then asked them to paraphrase what the ability did back to me. Both of them said that it granted you the supernatural ability like the spell freedom of movement. Both of them specifically said, "like the spell," and when I asked them if it would work on both magical and non-magical effects, both of them said that yes, it would work like the spell. I also remember clearly thinking that it worked as the spell when I first read the description. Granted, that's just three little examples in the entire world, but how many people do you know that would read that paragraph only once and think that it only applied to magical effects and nothing else? If you're claiming that it does only apply to magical effects, can you really say that it is that clear?

Just a thought.

 

[Lamoni]

I'm struck by imagining an ability with 'Removes magical diseases, as the Remove Disease spell'

Would people think the ability should remove all diseases?

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.

It only mentions diseases that were caused by magic in the clause. This would be just as ambiguous as the travel domain ability is now. Does the fact that it doesn't mention normal diseases mean it doesn't work on normal diseases? If it removed all diseases, it could have just said it removes ALL diseases and not mentioned magic ones specifically. Could the ability also mean that it removes all diseases and mentioned magical ones for emphasis, or out of carelessness? The thing is... once you put in "regardless of..." it makes things less clear.

The example you gave was very clear and would not be cause for a 4 page discussion.

 

[evilbob]

I think you're conflating two questions here:
1: What was the designer's intent?
2: What is the literal meaning of the text as written?

While I disagree that #2 has only one hard-and-fast answer, I think that you're exactly right, and that's similar to what Lamoni said earlier. A semantics argument cannot be properly addressed with an intent argument, and vice versa.

 

[Artoomis]

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer

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).

Unfortunately, it contains no logic, nor did I present both sides to them because I've found compicated questions get no answers at all!

Make of it what you will. It as "official" as it is likely to get, I suppose.

Dear William,

In only works against magic effects that impede movement, and would not work for a regular grapple in this case. 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: Westronic@aol.com [mailto:Westronic@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:39 PM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: Travel Domain and Freedom of Movement


Please help settle a debate on ENWorld:

Does the travel domain (quoted below) work just like the Freedom of Movement spell, or is it limited to only magical effects that impede movement?

Specifically, would having the travel domain allow you to automatically escape a grapple like the Freedom of Movement spell would?

Thanks,

William

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).

This granted power is a supernatural ability.

 

[Caliban]

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).

Unfortunately, it contains no logic, nor did I present both sides to them because I've found compicated questions get no answers at all!

Make of it what you will. It as "official" as it is likely to get, I suppose.

Gee, what do you know.

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

 

[mikebr99]

Kewl... Thanks Artoomis.


Mike