D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[Jimlock]

Well, in that case, you're arguing about your house rule, not RAW. "Minor adjustments" could mean lots of things, not just your example.

No. I'm not arguing about house rules. I'm Arguing about the flexibility RAW provides me with.

To me it's more of a house rule to take a 3.0 book and use it is as it is, than taking into consideration the minor adjustments RAW suggests you should.

Those minor adjustments are supposed to be made in respect to the 3.5 revision. Not in respect to my personal tastes.

 

[Jimlock]

Well, in that case, you're arguing about your house rule, not RAW. "Minor adjustments" could mean lots of things, not just your example.

IF the RAW had said instead that:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision without any adjustments.

Then i would i have been house ruling.

But RAW does not say that. It says:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

It is clear that I'm well within RAW.

 

[xigbar]

Sure, that's well within RAW, but by your own wording, that makes it your own interpretation of the rule. It's a legitimate interpretation, and there are lots of ambiguous words in some of the rules, but it is an interpretation and nothing more. In a sense, it's simulataneously a house rule and an actual rule, if that makes any sense.

 

[Jimlock]

"Minor adjustments" could mean lots of things, not just your example.

No it does not. This text is found under a clause about the revision. It is not found in a chapter/clause about "changing the rules/house-ruling."

Therefore when RAW says:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

It is actually saying:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments, in respect to the revision.

 

[xigbar]

Just so we're clear, the basis for your arguement is what the meaning of "minor adjustments" is? I think you and I could be doing better things.

 

[anest1s]

No it does not. This text is found under a clause about the revision. It is not found in a chapter/clause about "changing the rules/house-ruling."

Therefore when RAW says:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

It is actually saying:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments, in respect to the revision.

Or it is actually saying:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments, which we will point out if and when they are needed.

 

[Jimlock]

Sure, that's well within RAW, but by your own wording, that makes it your own interpretation of the rule. It's a legitimate interpretation, and there are lots of ambiguous words in some of the rules, but it is an interpretation and nothing more. In a sense, it's simulataneously a house rule and an actual rule, if that makes any sense.

That make it my own interpretation of the rule?

Hardly. See my previous post.

Perhaps you could provide the reference/rule that clarifies how: by RAW the 3.0 material should be used as it is in 3.5, without adjustments, so as to counter my own personal interpretation?

I honestly see nothing ambiguous about those adjustments. But again I ask you, or anyone else in this thread, to provide me with an official rule/clause/paragraph/chapter/webpage/whatever... that says, how 3.0 Material should be used "untouched" in a 3.5 system?

there are lots of ambiguous words in some of the rules, but it is an interpretation and nothing more.

When RAW is ambiguous it is no longer RAW. It instantly becomes RAI.

In this case RAW is not ambiguous at all. It clearly says that 3.0 material can be used in a 3.5 system by making adjustments in respect to the revision, so as to bring a rule book up to date. What is there so ambiguous about that? Perhaps you can explain me?
Perhaps you can provide another interpretation?


The arguments that says that the Disciple should hold on to the stacking in 3.5 has not support from RAW or RAI. That is a house-rule.

 

[Jimlock]

Just so we're clear, the basis for your arguement is what the meaning of "minor adjustments" is? I think you and I could be doing better things.

And what is the basis of your argument?

 

[Jimlock]

Or it is actually saying:

This revision is compatible with all existing products,
and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments, which we will point out if and when they are needed.

there is nothing that can relate this phase:
which we will point out if and when they are needed
to anything written or intended in the clause on the revision.

Not only this is not a valid interpretation, it is also fiction.

Or perhaps you can explain me why i'm wrong?

 

[xigbar]

My arguement, strictly speaking, has no basis. I am merely saying, as an opinion (I believe I mentioned that it was an opinion) that the wording doesn't exactly specify what the adjustments should be. I suppose you could say that the basis of my arguement is the same as what I see your's as being; The meaning of a word which can be used the same way outside of the game, and in effect, has ceased to be an arguement about the game in this context. There's no need to get defensive.