Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 6737708" data-attributes="member: 6796566">So, you would disregard the clear and officially confirmed intent of the rule in an effort to inflate a semantic ambiguity into a means by which to unfairly destroy a player character. Is that not a completely fair characterization?In a situation wherein the intended rule was &quot;this and that&quot; and the written rule came out &quot;this or that,&quot; it is perhaps useful to distinguish between the written and intended rule. That's an error in the printed material that can be corrected via errata. In a situation like this, however, you've got an ambiguous rule interaction, which apparently confuses you to the point that you believe (quite adamantly) in a wrong interpretation of it. Crawford clarifies, telling you what was meant. That's not good enough for you, though... you have to carry on cranky about how it doesn't matter, because it is &quot;only&quot; the intent of the rule.What a load of crap.&quot;RAI&quot; vs &quot;RAW&quot; is a stupid argument, meaningless anywhere other than an internet forum. There is the text, and there is the interpretation at the table. The interpretation can be guided by clarifications from WotC such as Crawford's tweets on this issue, or the interpretation can disregard them as the DM goes his or her own way. That interpretation becomes a &quot;house rule&quot; such as the one you are championing in this thread.You have demonstrated that it is possible to read the rules of D&amp;D with a complete disregard for the intent of those rules, and you have demonstrated that doing so leads to a bad outcome. Congratulations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="epithet, post: 6737708, member: 6796566"] So, you would disregard the clear and officially confirmed intent of the rule in an effort to inflate a semantic ambiguity into a means by which to unfairly destroy a player character. Is that not a completely fair characterization? In a situation wherein the intended rule was "this and that" and the written rule came out "this or that," it is perhaps useful to distinguish between the written and intended rule. That's an error in the printed material that can be corrected via errata. In a situation like this, however, you've got an ambiguous rule interaction, which apparently confuses you to the point that you believe (quite adamantly) in a wrong interpretation of it. Crawford clarifies, telling you what was meant. That's not good enough for you, though... you have to carry on cranky about how it doesn't matter, because it is "only" the intent of the rule. What a load of crap. "RAI" vs "RAW" is a stupid argument, meaningless anywhere other than an internet forum. There is the text, and there is the interpretation at the table. The interpretation can be guided by clarifications from WotC such as Crawford's tweets on this issue, or the interpretation can disregard them as the DM goes his or her own way. That interpretation becomes a "house rule" such as the one you are championing in this thread. You have demonstrated that it is possible to read the rules of D&D with a complete disregard for the intent of those rules, and you have demonstrated that doing so leads to a bad outcome. Congratulations. [/QUOTE]

Verification