Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7037135" data-attributes="member: 15700">I disagree, and think it is there to tell you that the list is just a partial list, and here's why.&nbsp; Because if it was as you claimed, it would be redundant to even have the word in the sentence, and secondly, it doesn't fit the language of the rest of the book.&nbsp; I.e., any time there is a chance of succeeding or failure mentioned in the book, it doesn't say &quot;can&quot; in the description.&nbsp; Eldritch blast doesn't say &quot;you can inflict 1d10 force damage&quot; it says &quot;you do inflict 1d10 force damage on a hit&quot;.&nbsp; Same with every other spell that has an effect that has a DC or hit roll.&nbsp; Sneak attack doesn't say &quot;you can inflict 1d6 extra damage&quot; it says &quot;you do inflict 1d6 damage&quot;, etc, etc.&nbsp; So why would they break from this standard of language usage to insert the word &quot;can&quot; if it's already understood by the hundreds of other examples already in the book that a failed roll results in a failed attempt?&nbsp; I think that word is included because it illustrates how the list is a partial list, and not a complete list.&nbsp; I also very much think the designers did not want that to be a complete list, because it would cause problems.&nbsp; I.e., maybe something comes up that makes sense to break concentration but the rules lawyer will say &quot;But it's not on this list, so I keep concentration!&quot;&nbsp; 5e is very much pro-rulings.&nbsp; Everything I know about the game design intent, and word usage, points to that being a partial list to set the groundwork, but is not complete by any means.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7037135, member: 15700"] I disagree, and think it is there to tell you that the list is just a partial list, and here's why. Because if it was as you claimed, it would be redundant to even have the word in the sentence, and secondly, it doesn't fit the language of the rest of the book. I.e., any time there is a chance of succeeding or failure mentioned in the book, it doesn't say "can" in the description. Eldritch blast doesn't say "you can inflict 1d10 force damage" it says "you do inflict 1d10 force damage on a hit". Same with every other spell that has an effect that has a DC or hit roll. Sneak attack doesn't say "you can inflict 1d6 extra damage" it says "you do inflict 1d6 damage", etc, etc. So why would they break from this standard of language usage to insert the word "can" if it's already understood by the hundreds of other examples already in the book that a failed roll results in a failed attempt? I think that word is included because it illustrates how the list is a partial list, and not a complete list. I also very much think the designers did not want that to be a complete list, because it would cause problems. I.e., maybe something comes up that makes sense to break concentration but the rules lawyer will say "But it's not on this list, so I keep concentration!" 5e is very much pro-rulings. Everything I know about the game design intent, and word usage, points to that being a partial list to set the groundwork, but is not complete by any means. [/QUOTE]

Verification