Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 156258" data-attributes="member: 259">KD, as I pointed out before you even pulled out that ruleslawyer cap, this is an ambiguous phrase.English is an imprecise language, and in a case like this, it's ambiguous whether the conjunction is joining together two aspects of the miss chance or is joining a miss chance with another feature of concealment.The fact that it's in a table isn't really helpful, either:&nbsp; the ambiguity is still there, and there's a very good reason for the second effect of total concealment to be included in the miss chance column.&nbsp; No other type of concealment has a secondary effect.Imagine a table of poisons that has an &quot;ability damage&quot; column.&nbsp; Imagine that most poisons have effects like &quot;1d6 STR&quot; or &quot;1 CON&quot; in this column, but one poison has an effect that reads, &quot;1d10 CON and victim is paralyzed.&quot;&nbsp; Would you argue that paralysis is an ability damage?&nbsp; or that in addition to the ability damage, the victim is also paralyzed?Granted, the table could be more precise, at the expense of economy and ease of use.&nbsp; The &quot;miss chance&quot; column could be labeled &quot;concealment effects,&quot; and each level of concealment could say &quot;xx% miss chance.&quot;&nbsp; That would remove the ambiguity while making the table more difficult to read.When I bet on how the Sage will interpret it, I'm betting on how he'll interpret an ambiguity.&nbsp; Do you deny that the ambiguity is there -- that it's unclear what &quot;and&quot; is conjoining?Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 156258, member: 259"] KD, as I pointed out before you even pulled out that ruleslawyer cap, this is an ambiguous phrase. English is an imprecise language, and in a case like this, it's ambiguous whether the conjunction is joining together two aspects of the miss chance or is joining a miss chance with another feature of concealment. The fact that it's in a table isn't really helpful, either: the ambiguity is still there, and there's a very good reason for the second effect of total concealment to be included in the miss chance column. No other type of concealment has a secondary effect. Imagine a table of poisons that has an "ability damage" column. Imagine that most poisons have effects like "1d6 STR" or "1 CON" in this column, but one poison has an effect that reads, "1d10 CON and victim is paralyzed." Would you argue that paralysis is an ability damage? or that in addition to the ability damage, the victim is also paralyzed? Granted, the table could be more precise, at the expense of economy and ease of use. The "miss chance" column could be labeled "concealment effects," and each level of concealment could say "xx% miss chance." That would remove the ambiguity while making the table more difficult to read. When I bet on how the Sage will interpret it, I'm betting on how he'll interpret an ambiguity. Do you deny that the ambiguity is there -- that it's unclear what "and" is conjoining? Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification