Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6146133" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I agree wholeheartedly.&nbsp; Like I said, I'd cast &quot;Dispel BS&quot; on that as soon as it came up.But there it is, the difference between &quot;Rules as Written&quot; and &quot;Rules as Intended&quot;.&nbsp; Being sane DMS who aren't into the Munchkin thing, we try to play RAI whenever possible.&nbsp; But at the same time, i like my rules written down in black and white.&nbsp; If there's a dispute, I like to be able to point to the text that backs me up.&nbsp; It might not make me right, in terms of making sense, but at least it's inarguable.&nbsp; If the book says, &quot;That thing catches fire&quot;, then we stop arguing about that and move on to trying to put it out. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Personally I try to avoid technical arguments with rules lawyers though.&nbsp; What was the old saying?&nbsp; &quot;Don't try to mud wrestle a pig.&nbsp; You both end up muddy, but the pig likes it.&quot;I've never considered the material components or divine foci to be &quot;magical&quot; in and of themselves.&nbsp; I mean, pinches of dust, fluffs of lamb's wool, little glass rods, balls of bat droppings etc don't show up on a Detect Magic, do they?&nbsp; Neither do holy symbols, as far as I know.&nbsp; So, since they aren't &quot;magical&quot; in and of themselves, the AMF wouldn't matter to them.We could go on, but let's not.&nbsp; We agree in essence, and that makes for a good stopping point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6146133, member: 6669384"] I agree wholeheartedly. Like I said, I'd cast "Dispel BS" on that as soon as it came up. But there it is, the difference between "Rules as Written" and "Rules as Intended". Being sane DMS who aren't into the Munchkin thing, we try to play RAI whenever possible. But at the same time, i like my rules written down in black and white. If there's a dispute, I like to be able to point to the text that backs me up. It might not make me right, in terms of making sense, but at least it's inarguable. If the book says, "That thing catches fire", then we stop arguing about that and move on to trying to put it out. :) Personally I try to avoid technical arguments with rules lawyers though. What was the old saying? "Don't try to mud wrestle a pig. You both end up muddy, but the pig likes it." I've never considered the material components or divine foci to be "magical" in and of themselves. I mean, pinches of dust, fluffs of lamb's wool, little glass rods, balls of bat droppings etc don't show up on a [I]Detect Magic[/I], do they? Neither do holy symbols, as far as I know. So, since they aren't "magical" in and of themselves, the AMF wouldn't matter to them. We could go on, but let's not. We agree in essence, and that makes for a good stopping point. [/QUOTE]

Verification