Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 7037178" data-attributes="member: 61529">All of those examples are for a single specific thing. This is for a category in which only one thing has a chance-of-failure. I also don't think that the word really implies an open-ended list; when they intend that, they usually say something like &quot;some examples of&quot; or &quot;for instance&quot;. This list isn't presented that way.But it doesn't illustrate that, or mean that, at all. The list wouldn't be any more exhaustive without the word &quot;can&quot;. The statement &quot;The following factors break concentration&quot; wouldn't logically imply that no other factors do. But it would be incorrect, because it's possible for &quot;Taking damage.&quot; (the bolded heading) to happen without breaking concentration. So they need a qualifier to point out that the bolded items in the bullet points can break concentration, so you know you need to read for more detail to see whether or not they do break concentration.This is complete nonsense. The rules are already completely clear that the DM can allow or prohibit anything if it makes sense to do so. The word &quot;can&quot; wouldn't change that at all, either way.Most obviously, the fact that at least two or three rules lawyers, at least one of whom has done significant time on a standards committee, think the list is pretty obviously exhaustive suggests that, if the designers intended the word &quot;can&quot; to indicate a nonexhaustive list, and did that instead of saying something like &quot;Factors such as the following can break concentration:&quot;, that the designers were not trying very hard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 7037178, member: 61529"] All of those examples are for a single specific thing. This is for a category in which only one thing has a chance-of-failure. I also don't think that the word really implies an open-ended list; when they intend that, they usually say something like "some examples of" or "for instance". This list isn't presented that way. But it doesn't illustrate that, or mean that, at all. The list wouldn't be any [B]more[/B] exhaustive without the word "can". The statement "The following factors break concentration" wouldn't logically imply that no other factors do. But it would be incorrect, because it's possible for "Taking damage." (the bolded heading) to happen without breaking concentration. So they need a qualifier to point out that the bolded items in the bullet points [B]can[/B] break concentration, so you know you need to read for more detail to see whether or not they [B]do[/B] break concentration. This is complete nonsense. The rules are already completely clear that the DM can allow or prohibit anything if it makes sense to do so. The word "can" wouldn't change that at all, either way. Most obviously, the fact that at least two or three rules lawyers, at least one of whom has done significant time on a standards committee, think the list is pretty obviously exhaustive suggests that, if the designers intended the word "can" to indicate a nonexhaustive list, and did that instead of saying something like "Factors such as the following can break concentration:", that the designers were not trying very hard. [/QUOTE]

Verification