Missing RAW in Lifting and Carrying

[Zhorn]

Offshoot from another thread.
Regarding the following rules in the Player's Handbook

Lifting and Carrying
Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don’t usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
We have a few terms that (as far as i can tell so far) are not fully defined in RAW.
What is the distinguishing different between Lifting and Carrying?
Can you Lift a weight/load without is classing as Carrying?
Can you Carry a weight/load without it classing as Lifting?
What happens to your movement (or other additional consequences) when Carrying a load greater than your Carry Capacity?
What happens to your movement (or other additional consequences) when Lifting a load greater than your Carry Capacity?
This is mostly the result of the line "While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet" excluding lifting.
And I cannot tell if this exclusion was either an intentional choice on behalf of the designers, or an unintended error.

If an unintended error, it's interesting that no errata has covered this as of yet, which in tern leads me to believe that this was instead an intentional choice, leading back to those three listed questions above.

Now as far as just saying "just use a reasonable ruling" or "DM's choice" is fine for the table...


For example; what I intuitively thought was the case was:


Carry = Support a weight off the ground and move with it
Lift = Support a weight off the ground and not move with it
If you attempt to Carry above your Carry Capacity, your speed drops to 0, but you can continue to Lift up to a load of double your Carry Capacity.
Pushing and Dragging are not supporting the weight using a Carry/Lift, and thus the amount you can Push or Drag is not reduced based on your current Carry load.
Carrying and Lifting are fully supporting a weight, and are thus limited by each other.

If you Carry a weight, the amount of available Lift you have is reduced by that amount
If you Lift a weight, the amount of available Carry you have is reduced by that amount

...but is not a RAW answer. It's not against RAW either as it doesn't allow another statement disallowed by RAW, but you can also get the interpretations that...



Lift doesn't define a penalty for Lifting more than the Carry Capacity, and therefor has none (treat the exclusion as intentional AND accepting the lack of defined consequences as permission).
Pushing, Dragging and Lifting are interchangeable terms and so you can Lift a weight up to twice your Carry Capacity and still move at a speed of 5 feet (treating the exclusion as a typo).
The Push, Drag, or Lift maximum load is not based of your current Carry weight, So you can Carry a weight up to your Carry Capacity, then Lift an additional weight up to twice your Carry Capacity to have a total load of triple your Carry Capacity, and with no defined movement restriction you'd still have your unaltered movement speed. (very much loophole abuse here).

... and they too are not breaking the actual RAW either.

So, anyone know it there's a hidden clause in any of the 5e books that gives us a quotable RAW on the matter?
Or know of an upcoming errata change for this?
Reasonable rulings might be reasonable, but they're still not RAW if not explicitly worded in the book.

[Greywander]

Here's how I understand it:
Lifting is just picking something up.
Carrying is moving while lifting something.

For example, let's say a heavy portcullis has closed, and the barbarian wants to lift it up so the party can pass underneath it. In this case, the barbarian is lifting the portcullis.

Now, there are some gray areas. Let's say you want to pick something up and put it down somewhere else within reach. You aren't moving, but the object being lifted is moved from one spot to another. Or, let's say you want to pick something up and move while holding it in place. In the example above, presumably the barbarian wants to pass beneath the portcullis before setting it down so he can join the rest of his party. In that case, you are moving, but the object isn't. Personally, I'd rule both of these qualify as lifting.

[DrKerosene]

Do I have any RAW, or coming Sage Advice premonitions? No.

But if I had to point to other RAW things for guidance:


Can you Lift a weight/load without is classing as Carrying? I’d point to the Block & Tackle wording of being able to “hoist” up to 4 times the weight you can lift. I recall reading someone saying that each real world pulley has a multiplier of 2, and so the DnD kit probably had 2 pulleys, if you wanted to allow multiple kits to stack. Securing such a load seems like a vague side-track to avoid right now.


Can you Carry a weight/load without it classing as Lifting? Beyond your normal carry capacity, I don’t think so.


What happens to your movement (or other additional consequences) when Carrying a load greater than your Carry Capacity?

What happens to your movement (or other additional consequences) when Lifting a load greater than your Carry Capacity? If you’re past the secondary threshold, I figure your movement speed becomes 0 or suffers something like a -30. The variant encumbrance rules seem to imply stacking -10s to movement speed, (and a pseudo exhaustion/poisoned condition).

I’d point to mounts and vehicles charts for carry limits and multipliers, specifically comparing mules, orcs, and goliaths. If a PC wants to drag a wagon, or push a sled/giant boulder, etc, I’d just use the rules you’re already aware of with the 5ft speed limit.

I’d probably point to the spells Floating Disk and Levitate both having a 500LB limit, and how a non-orc/goliath would need a strength score of 17+ to be able to maybe exceed those spells, and then say I don’t think the 3x capacity interpretation is RAI.

[Tanarii]

If you try to Carry more than your weight, you can't move. If you Lift, you cannot also move.

If it was possible to move, it would say so. Your only movement option given in excess of your capacity is Push or Drag.

[Zhorn]

If you try to Carry more than your weight, you can't move. If you Lift, you cannot also move.

If it was possible to move, it would say so. Your only movement option given in excess of your capacity is Push or Drag.

While I am in agreement with this as a ruling, the "If it was possible to move, it would say so" is just as easily reversed into "If it was impossible to move, it would say so", since the book doesn't explicitly say what happens to your movement when you exceed Carry Capacity for Lifting/Carrying.

[Greywander]

There are a number of terms that aren't strictly defined. I think in these cases the rules are trusting that we can all come to a reasonable agreement based on the colloquial meaning of the words. "Lifting" simply means picking something up, while "carrying" means moving something you're lifting. Perhaps they felt these terms were intuitive enough that they didn't need to be defined.

In other cases, they do make the effort to define what a term means. For example, an attack is anything and everything that uses an attack roll (with grappling being an exception, apparently). If I cast Acid Splash, we would colloquially understand that this constitutes an attack on the target, but in terms of the rules it is not an attack because it doesn't use an attack roll.

Another good one is how an unarmed strike counts as a weapon attack, but not an attack with a weapon.

Generally, if the rules don't specifically spell something out, it's probably best to use the simplest and most intuitive interpretation. I think this is one of those cases where there is no RAW, so we have to fall back on RAI. Since movement is mentioned for carrying, pushing, and dragging, but not for lifting, it makes sense to me that lifting just means picking something up without moving. If we're moving, then we're not lifting, we're carrying, pushing, or dragging. If lifting did allow for movement, it would be redundant with the carrying, pushing, or dragging rules.

Think of it this way: the rules don't specifically say your character is able to see, but the presence of a blinded condition implies that characters can see by default. By looking at other rules related to the one in question, we can infer the meaning of the rule that we're not sure about. Movement while holding something is already accounted for under carrying. If you want to move something heavier than you can carry, you push or drag it. Lifting has the same limit as pushing and dragging, so if it allowed you to move then it would be redundant with pushing and dragging.

[da newt]

On a very similar but different subject - if you grapple a creature/person you can move with them at 1/2 speed (makes sense - they are resisting), but at what speed can you move with a creature/person that is not resisting (paralyzed, unconscious, willing, etc) and is under your carry capacity?

My belief is that as long as you are under your carry capacity, you can pick them up and move at normal speed if they are not resisting - my DM rules even an unconscious ally would slow any PC to half speed.

[Zhorn]

On a very similar but different subject - if you grapple a creature/person you can move with them at 1/2 speed (makes sense - they are resisting), but at what speed can you move with a creature/person that is not resisting (paralyzed, unconscious, willing, etc) and is under your carry capacity?

My belief is that as long as you are under your carry capacity, you can pick them up and move at normal speed if they are not resisting - my DM rules even an unconscious ally would slow any PC to half speed.

Pretty much. A grapple is a contested attack condition, so as long as the target isn't resisting and you can carry them without exceeding your Carry Capacity, there isn't a by-RAW movement penalty that I can see.
However; half speed for carrying creatures is a common houserule from what I've heard (applying Moving a Grappled Creature regardless of willingness/resistance of the creature) is done to avoid movement exploits (6 second rounds happening in theoretical unison, turn order just makes it simpler to manage), when a light weight character is relayed across a field at rocket speeds.

Being said, it makes for an interesting debate if they rule a single object of the same weight would not impose such a penalty, since a non-undead corpse is classified as an object (set by precedence of Improvised Weapons, PHB p147), not a creature, but is otherwise physically indistinguishable (in terms of size, shape and weight) from their living-but-unconscious-or-paralysed counterpart.

[Tanarii]

While I am in agreement with this as a ruling, the "If it was possible to move, it would say so" is just as easily reversed into "If it was impossible to move, it would say so", since the book doesn't explicitly say what happens to your movement when you exceed Carry Capacity for Lifting/Carrying.
The reasonable assuming is "you can't move" as opposed to "nothing".

Edit: okay I get your point. Another reasonable assumption is they left Lift out of the 5ft speed rule.

[Zhorn]

Edit: okay I get your point. Another reasonable assumption is they left Lift out of the 5ft speed rule.

Earlier editions had a similar thing where a Lift could still allow movement.
Looking at the 3.5e SRD, they have Lifting = 2x Carry, movement speed 5 ft (and some other 3.5 language; full round action, AC penalty, etc), but their Drag/Push = 5x Carry, no movement penalty, and could further change to x10 or x2.5 or less for favourable or unfavourable conditions respectively...
4E imposed a 'Slowed Condition' which was 2 squares of movement (10 ft equivalent).

I was talking about this on discord with a member of my local Uni's tabletop club.
Their view as follows:


Let's step through the logic, then. Where there are ambiguities, we shall need to explore each possible outcome to see whether they are logically valid or fallacious.

Your Strength score determines the amount of weight you can bear. The following terms define what you can lift or carry.
By corollary, anything outside the scope of what 'the following terms' define is outside the scope of 'what you can lift or carry', as in it literally cannot be done. I don't think there was any contention here.

Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry.
A simple definition.

Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity.
Another simple definition. We see that 'push', 'drag' and 'lift' are grouped. What distinguishes these actions from 'carrying' is in the second half of the paragraph.

While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
This is the consequence of bearing more weight than your carrying capacity (but within double your carrying capacity).
One might wonder at the exclusion of the term 'lifting' in this sentence. Re-reading the start of your discussion, this appears to be the original point of contention (your hypothesis was that when lifting your speed dropped to 0 feet).
One might assume that 'lifting' is a separate activity to 'pushing' or 'dragging'. Let us assume this is the correct assumption for a moment. The rules specify what happens when you push or drag beyond your carrying capacity (speed reduced to 5 feet). The rules do not specify what happens when you lift beyond your carrying capacity, but the rules do say that you can lift beyond your carrying capacity. The absence of modifiers means we default to regular behaviour, which means that we can 'lift' twice our carrying capacity while moving at normal speed. If something different happened (such as your speed dropping to 0), the rules would have said so. But they do not say so, so nothing different happens. This alone should be a red flag, because if the rules writer had intended for lifting to have special rules, they would have written special rules for lifting.
However, we now hit a logical inconsistency. If your speed is unaffected when 'lifting', then 'lift' and 'carry' are identical in function. If lifting is indistinguishable from carrying, then you can carry twice your carrying capacity without any penalty. But this is a contradiction, because you can only carry up to your carrying capacity. Furthermore, if lifting imposes no penalty, then pushing and dragging are redundant unless the thing you are attempting to push or drag is somehow affixed to the floor yet still moveable.
As such, if we assume that 'lifting' has separate rules to 'pushing' and 'dragging', then we end with the Lifting and Carrying section being deliberately misleading, because it says that your carrying capacity is 15 times Strength but (by this assumption) we can carry 30 times Strength without penalty.
Let us now consider the opposite hypothesis, where 'lift', 'push' and 'drag' are considered to be equivalent in terms of these rules. This hypothesis is consistent with the context: the paragraph is entitled Push, Drag, or Lift, and the first sentence refers to the weight you can 'push, drag, or lift'. No distinction is made here. Additionally, the first paragraph of Lifting and Carrying (and, indeed, the title itself) refers to 'what you can lift or carry'. 'Push' and 'drag' are not mentioned at this stage, yet they are mentioned in conjunction with 'lift' later. If 'pushing' and 'dragging' were separate actions to 'lifting', then the section title would be something along the lines of Lifting, Pushing and Carrying instead. Furthermore, the initial sentence talks about the 'weight you can bear', which implies that this section refers to means of bearing weight in general.
Taking this assumption, the rules for lifting are equivalent to the rules for pushing and dragging as described in the Push, Drag, or Lift paragraph, that is, your speed drops to 5 feet if you lift above your carrying capacity. The result is immediately logically consistent and elegantly simple and clear. By combination of context, logical consistency, Occam's Razor, and not rendering half the section redundant, this conclusion that 'lifting' follows the same rules as 'pushing' and 'dragging' is the one which should be considered correct.
QED

[Tanarii]

I absence of clarity, default to common sense and/or logic. By which I mean the common internet definitions of those terms, "what makes the most sense to me". :smallamused:

My common sense / logic / makes the most sense: is barring a special rule, exceeding your carrying capacity means you cannot move or lift it. There is such a rule, and it tells us what we can do. Further more, my special senses of sensibility tell me that dragging and pushing is what you do to move something you cannot carry or lift to move. Whereas lifting is exactly that, getting it off the ground. If you could move, that would be "carrying" not "lifting", and it would also not be harder than dragging or pushing.

[NaughtyTiger]

While I am in agreement with this as a ruling, the "If it was possible to move, it would say so" is just as easily reversed into "If it was impossible to move, it would say so", since the book doesn't explicitly say what happens to your movement when you exceed Carry Capacity for Lifting/Carrying.

"If it was possible to X it would say so" is just as easily reversed into "If it was impossible to X, it would say so" is key to so many RAW discussions.

that said, in this case, i agree with Tanarii's position.

[DrKerosene]

While I am in agreement with this as a ruling, the "If it was possible to move, it would say so" is just as easily reversed into "If it was impossible to move, it would say so", since the book doesn't explicitly say what happens to your movement when you exceed Carry Capacity for Lifting/Carrying.

I’m unable to find a copy-pasta for when someone says “The DnD rulebook(s) doesn’t say I can’t do X, so I should be able to do X!”, but I guess the general line from JC “Beware of claims that a rule does something mentioned nowhere in that rule or elsewhere in the core books. There aren't secret rules.“ is what applies here. Otherwise I’m sure some wacky “I throw the earth into the sun” result could occur if we continued to work under such an assumption as your reversal point.

Saying Lifting reduces your movement speed to 5ft seems fine and suitably epic fantasy if ruled it that way. And saying Lifting reduces your speed to 0ft seems to still be within the realm of real world logic and seems to not break anything in the game’s rules.

Though I feel like that may be worth some kind of check to try to Lift and move.

[Zhorn]

Though I feel like that may be worth some kind of check to try to Lift and move.

Spit balling a houserule idea: If attempting to move above your Carry Capacity, but still within your Lift allowance: Athletics check, treating the result as a score to get a modifier from to determine distance.
eg: 12 = 1 ft, 14 = 2 ft, ... , 30 = 10 ft.

[Yuroch Kern]

I think the overall debate might be "What is lifting and carrying in the context of 5e?" Carrying is presumably what you have on your person, not necessarily held but just on you. You move around with it, like a heavy backpack, but all the weight is on your legs and back. Typically evenly distributed and adjustable, but weight you casually move with. Lifting is a more direct act of strength, combining all applicable muscle groups involved in the specific task, not really focused so much on movement, just power. It even implies that what you are carrying is irrelevant at times, like bench lifting doesn't care what's on your legs. It can be inferred then that Lifting is a separate but related number to Carrying. I think you can have a 10 Strength and have 150 pounds of Carry, AND 300 pounds of Lift. But penalties start at 151, and whether it's only a 5' stumbling around or a focused unmoving is key. I'm for 5', and exceeding 300 is a complete stop and Exhaustion checks. Kinda like moving a full sized fridge, even with help, up some stairs...

[Zhorn]

I think the overall debate might be "What is lifting and carrying in the context of 5e?" Carrying is presumably what you have on your person, not necessarily held but just on you. You move around with it, like a heavy backpack, but all the weight is on your legs and back. Typically evenly distributed and adjustable, but weight you casually move with. Lifting is a more direct act of strength, combining all applicable muscle groups involved in the specific task, not really focused so much on movement, just power. It even implies that what you are carrying is irrelevant at times, like bench lifting doesn't care what's on your legs. It can be inferred then that Lifting is a separate but related number to Carrying. I think you can have a 10 Strength and have 150 pounds of Carry, AND 300 pounds of Lift. But penalties start at 151, and whether it's only a 5' stumbling around or a focused unmoving is key. I'm for 5', and exceeding 300 is a complete stop and Exhaustion checks. Kinda like moving a full sized fridge, even with help, up some stairs...

So this is what I was talking about with the 3rd alternate interpretation; as this just reads like loophole abuse to me, and lacks overall definition of consequences.
Lifting and Carrying are related but entirely separate, allowing for a total load of 3x Carry Capacity, but is that transition from 150 to 151 lb. including or excluding Lift?
If it includes Lift, why wouldn't it for the previous 150 lb. of Carry Capacity being lifted?
When does a weight go from being lifted to being carried, or vice-versa?
If lifting is done with the arms, and carrying is done with the legs and back, how do the legs and back ignore the weight in the arms for a lift?
Then with the exhaustion check, how is that DC being determined? Is it the same for all exceeding weights, or is it a variable?

[Yuroch Kern]

So this is what I was talking about with the 3rd alternate interpretation; as this just reads like loophole abuse to me, and lacks overall definition of consequences.
Lifting and Carrying are related but entirely separate, allowing for a total load of 3x Carry Capacity, but is that transition from 150 to 151 lb. including or excluding Lift?
If it includes Lift, why wouldn't it for the previous 150 lb. of Carry Capacity being lifted?
When does a weight go from being lifted to being carried, or vice-versa?
If lifting is done with the arms, and carrying is done with the legs and back, how do the legs and back ignore the weight in the arms for a lift?
Then with the exhaustion check, how is that DC being determined? Is it the same for all exceeding weights, or is it a variable?

It includes both. The 10 Strength being wearing nothing but ring mail with a shield and longsword drawn is Carrying 49 pounds, but Lifting 9 of it. For simplicity, Lift isn't figured, since it is all well within "Carry". Later, they subdue a foe somehow and have to load them on a cart 20' away. They drag the 200 pound foe after a couple rounds and toss them on the cart. Later, they defeat another, but they weigh 300 pounds. They drag the dude over, but now they gotta lift them in the cart...grunting and sweating, they barely do it, but pull something in the process...

After double Lift, but between triple maximum Carry, I modified the Forced March rules for exhaustion and did a DC 10+ 1 per 10 pounds over, +1 per round. Failure inflicts a level of exhaustion, but not the Lift. As far as the back and legs, it supports all of it, and failing to 2nd exhaustion is a great way to simulate a hernia...

[LordCdrMilitant]

I absence of clarity, default to common sense and/or logic. By which I mean the common internet definitions of those terms, "what makes the most sense to me". :smallamused:

My common sense / logic / makes the most sense: is barring a special rule, exceeding your carrying capacity means you cannot move or lift it. There is such a rule, and it tells us what we can do. Further more, my special senses of sensibility tell me that dragging and pushing is what you do to move something you cannot carry or lift to move. Whereas lifting is exactly that, getting it off the ground. If you could move, that would be "carrying" not "lifting", and it would also not be harder than dragging or pushing.

To give my 2c:
The clause about carrying capacity says: "This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry," not "This is the weight (in pounds) you can carry without penalty."
There's no condition that says that if you're beyond your carry capacity, you can't move. This is entirely an inserted clause, and has no real foundation in the written rules. If something would change your movement, it would say so.
Being over carrying capacity doesn't do anything to your movement, however, you may not carry more than your carrying capacity. It shouldn't be relevant what it does to your movement, since you can't be over your limit, period. If a thing you would carry would put you over limit, you can't pick it up.


As for Lifting, I assume that lifting means "lifting in place", so imposing a movement condition wouldn't really make sense.

[Zhorn]

To give my 2c:
The clause about carrying capacity says: "This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry," not "This is the weight (in pounds) you can carry without penalty."
There's no condition that says that if you're beyond your carry capacity, you can't move. This is entirely an inserted clause, and has no real foundation in the written rules. If something would change your movement, it would say so.
Being over carrying capacity doesn't do anything to your movement, however, you may not carry more than your carrying capacity. It shouldn't be relevant what it does to your movement, since you can't be over your limit, period. If a thing you would carry would put you over limit, you can't pick it up.


As for Lifting, I assume that lifting means "lifting in place", so imposing a movement condition wouldn't really make sense.

And therein lies the problem again:
If it would put you over carry capacity, you can't pick it up
If staying still, you CAN lift a weight above your base carry capacity (staying still not imposed by any rule)
If lifting, there is no stated effect on movement
if you have picked something up, and nothing is stopping you from moving, you can move, thus breaking (1)

[LordCdrMilitant]

And therein lies the problem again:
If it would put you over carry capacity, you can't pick it up
If staying still, you CAN lift a weight above your base carry capacity (staying still not imposed by any rule)
If lifting, there is no stated effect on movement
if you have picked something up, and nothing is stopping you from moving, you can move, thus breaking (1)


Carrying isn't lifting. Carrying implies picking something up and moving it somewhere else. Lifting implies picking something up, but not taking it anywhere.
I carry a chainsaw to the back of the house, I carry my computer upstairs. I don't lift my computer upstairs, or lift a chainsaw to the backyard.
I might, however, lift a weight, lift a box, or as someone previously proposed, lift a portcullis.

There's no stated effect on movement because lifting implies in plain language that the person is not moving.

If it would not put you over your carry capacity, you may carry it.
If it up to twice your carry capacity, you may push, drag, or lift it, but if it is over your carry capacity, you may not carry it.
If you are pushing or dragging it, because pushing and dragging imply movement, you move at 5'/turn.
If you are lifting it, movement isn't relevant, because you're not moving significantly horizontally.

[Zhorn]

To be clear, I agree with this as a ruling.
I'm just getting at the point that this is an interpretation, not RAW
So when you say...

As for Lifting, I assume that lifting means "lifting in place"
Immediately after having pointed to a statement of another poster (who's ruling is effectively the same net result as what you are advocating)...

This is entirely an inserted clause, and has no real foundation in the written rules. If something would change your movement, it would say so.
... that's not exactly proving a point.

Again, I am in agreement with how you would rule it. Whether we try to nail down more formal language or operations of rule interactions, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as to what a player can or cannot do with moving, lifting and carrying.

But because it's not explicitly stated in RAW, the alternative interpretation are not breaking RAW either.

[Tanarii]

You're missing the point. If Lifting meant "lift and move" it would be called carrying. And we already have a rule for how much you can carry. So lifting cannot be assumed to include movement. As soon as it includes movement you're breaking the carrying rule, if over that weight limit.

[NaughtyTiger]

first defintions (dictionary.com)


carry: support and move (someone or something) from one place to another.
lift: raise to a higher position or level.

there is only an issue if you have a different definition of carry and lift. Please supply your definitions of those words.

We do not demand in game definitions for "common" english, non-mechanical terms unless we disagree with their definition of "common" english words

[Zhorn]

You're missing the point. If Lifting meant "lift and move" it would be called carrying.

I fully understand that point, and agree it is a very reasonable assumption to be made.
Again, the ruling you support is in alignment with the ruling I support.

However, if that was the only possible interpretation, why is lifting + moving allowed in earlier editions?

Insistence on formal logic, common language assumptions, fairness, design intentions, extrapolated interpretations, etc etc etc is just running about in circles because of a reliance on something not in the book.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are a number of terms that aren't strictly defined. I think in these cases the rules are trusting that we can all come to a reasonable agreement based on the colloquial meaning of the words. "Lifting" simply means picking something up, while "carrying" means moving something you're lifting. Perhaps they felt these terms were intuitive enough that they didn't need to be defined.
Yes. Crawford and the other devs made the point about "use plain English unless a term is otherwise defined" some years ago.

[Tanarii]

Insistence on formal logic, common language assumptions, fairness, design intentions, extrapolated interpretations, etc etc etc is just running about in circles because of a reliance on something not in the book.The devs have made clear that "common language assumptions" is the "design intention".

Folks can choose to ignore both of those if they choose, and so be it. But on the forums, it's going to be pointed out to anyone who chooses to.