Tony Vargas
Legend
There's no RAW, so that's all quite true. ;PThere is no way to interpret the RAW as saying that D&D does not use any dice, and all attack rolls are actually resolved by a complex system of astrological signs.
The point isn't that there's an infinite number of possible interpretations of every word or passage, just that there's plenty of places where there's more than one. So there's no set of 'RAW' from which to deviate, there's just the game as presented, as a starting place.Just like the Paladin example. As much as I dislike it, the Paladin does exist as an official class in the RAW. There is no plausible interpretation (other than hunting down every PHB and ripping out those pages ... don't think I haven't thought of that) that would allow for it to not exist.
Everyone ultimately plays by some interpretation of the rules. AL has it's own set of which options to use, and at least some rulings, the devs have sounded off on their own rulings on Twitter. Individual DMs have their own rulings, there own decisions about options, and their own variants.There are those that want to (poor, benighted, souls) play by the RAW, and those that have to (AL).
It's left over expectation of weight from the 3e era.So there is some weight to RAW.
That and just wanting to appeal to something outside the individual merits of an interpretation for support of it being 'right.'
Once you accept that such isn't a dismissal, it's not an impediment to discussion.Not to mention it's pretty hard to discuss ... uh ... rules ... on websites such as this if every issue just becomes, "But that's your interpretation, man."
I suppose I'm really only trying to counter the implication that it would be in any least slightest way 'right' or 'better' for her not to have done so...and yet, you seem to continue to take issue with my continued, extremely reasonable take that the original DM in the OP was using a houserule (which is fine). So .... yeah?
Last edited: