Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7237407" data-attributes="member: 996">Hardly.  Nothing nihilistic about accepting the reality that natural language is ambiguous.    Sure, it's useful for instance, in understanding how the community attitude and comparative functionality of d20 rules made RAW king in the 3e era, or how ambiguous natural language writing and DM-Empowering (DM dependent) rules make RAW moot in 5e.And how both those considerations are minor compared to the rubber-meets-the-road of how a given table actually plays and what works for them.What the 5e rule /are/ is written in ambiguous natural language.  There are only interpretations, bucking to have one interpretation enshrined as RAW is counter-productive.The question isn't which interpretation is RAW, the question is what ruling works best for your game.</blockquote>