Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mvincent" data-source="post: 4139725" data-attributes="member: 27034">I disagree. I can (and have before) listed absurdities that can result if one chose strict RAW over RAI. This is because rules are unlikely to always be written with perfect wording (nor do we expect them to). Regardless, RAI is applicable for discussion in a rules forum (despite your own personal interests).The findings about flowing water elsewhere in the rules are certainly useful. I would back any DM that chose to adjudicate based on those terms, even though they don't align perfectly (i.e. it's not unreasonable to believe that the writer(s) intended to indicate the same thing with those two different terms, and it's probably the closest match that will be found in the core rules). However, it seems more likely to me that writers did not actually have this in mind, and that one was simply alluding to the commonly known (i.e. Bram Stoker's) vampire weakness. Going with the perceived higher percentage of probable intent is preferable to many than relying on strict literalism. Why would you begrudge them that? I don't think they would begrudge you of your preference (but if they did, I would likely instead be defending your view here).Even in legal matters, spirit/intent of a law is very relevant.</blockquote>