Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="subrosas" data-source="post: 4840324" data-attributes="member: 24241">Live by RAW, die by RAWOk, here's the deal. The RAW do not definitively tell us whether dying characters are still bloodied. At some point this may get resolved by WOTC (I haven't seen anyone claim that yet), and until then we can all believe whatever we like. But the whole &quot;rules don't say otherwise&quot; standard is a bad one - as I argued above, by that standard one could claim that dead characters are also bloodied and can be healed by consecrated ground.My whole point is that the using what the rules do not say as proof of what their intent is == a dumb standard. It only makes sense if applied selectively, but by what standard do you choose to selectively apply it? Common sense?I would guess we all agree that dead characters cannot be healed. Common sense overrides the idiotic &quot;Unwritten RAW&quot; standard here. But can we claim the same for dying vs. bloodied conditions? I don't think so. Some people see it as obvious that dying characters are still bloodied, and some see it obvious that dying characters are not bloodied. The fact that you fall into one of these two camps does not itself make you correct. The only reasonable conclusion is that we all run it as we see fit until the issue gets resolved authoritatively.My whole point is not to convince you that dying is a type of being bloodied or the opposite, but rather that the &quot;RAW does not say otherwise and I believe it is so, QED stop debate and believe me&quot; standard some were using earlier in this thread is a fallacy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="subrosas, post: 4840324, member: 24241"] [b]Live by RAW, die by RAW[/b] Ok, here's the deal. The RAW do not definitively tell us whether dying characters are still bloodied. At some point this may get resolved by WOTC (I haven't seen anyone claim that yet), and until then we can all believe whatever we like. But the whole "rules don't say otherwise" standard is a bad one - as I argued above, by that standard one could claim that dead characters are also bloodied and can be healed by consecrated ground. My whole point is that the using what the rules do not say as proof of what their intent is == a dumb standard. It only makes sense if applied selectively, but by what standard do you choose to selectively apply it? Common sense? I would guess we all agree that dead characters cannot be healed. Common sense overrides the idiotic "Unwritten RAW" standard here. But can we claim the same for dying vs. bloodied conditions? I don't think so. Some people see it as obvious that dying characters are still bloodied, and some see it obvious that dying characters are not bloodied. The fact that you fall into one of these two camps does not itself make you correct. The only reasonable conclusion is that we all run it as we see fit until the issue gets resolved authoritatively. My whole point is not to convince you that dying is a type of being bloodied or the opposite, but rather that the "RAW does not say otherwise and I believe it is so, QED stop debate and believe me" standard some were using earlier in this thread is a fallacy. [/QUOTE]

Verification