Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7368584" data-attributes="member: 23751">I hope for your sake that the next time you have a skeleton of an elf and the players want to know what kind skeleton it is, you don't tell them elf.&nbsp; That skeleton would be as much an elf as the pile of druid elf dust is.This is.......hilarious.&nbsp; First false statement in there.&nbsp; &quot;if the rule unambiguously stated an outcome other than what they intended for it to say, then Jeremy et al would have rewritten it.&quot;.&nbsp; That's simply not true.&nbsp; There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't re-write it.&nbsp; The easiest being that they don't want to have to re-print all those PHBs.&nbsp; It's far easier to just rule what RAW says and then say what RAI is so that DM's can make up their minds.&nbsp; Second false statement in there.&nbsp; &quot;The fact that it was released in the form in which it was printed, contrary to the intent of its writer, necessarily means that there is entirely possible for it to be interpreted in accordance with that author's intent.&quot;.&nbsp; Um, no.&nbsp; The fact that it was released contrary to intent means that someone screwed up.&nbsp; It does not mean that what is written can be interpreted as what was intended.&nbsp; Interpreting the wildshape rules as RAI is like interpreting that dog over there as a bear.And I know this is a joke.&nbsp; You can't seriously be saying, after I've said multiple times in this thread that I house rule the hell out this game, that if I read RAW that I'm going to always go with what is written over what I think is best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7368584, member: 23751"] I hope for your sake that the next time you have a skeleton of an elf and the players want to know what kind skeleton it is, you don't tell them elf. That skeleton would be as much an elf as the pile of druid elf dust is. This is.......hilarious. First false statement in there. "if the rule unambiguously stated an outcome other than what they intended for it to say, then Jeremy et al would have rewritten it.". That's simply not true. There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't re-write it. The easiest being that they don't want to have to re-print all those PHBs. It's far easier to just rule what RAW says and then say what RAI is so that DM's can make up their minds. Second false statement in there. "The fact that it was released in the form in which it was printed, contrary to the intent of its writer, necessarily means that there is entirely possible for it to be interpreted in accordance with that author's intent.". Um, no. The fact that it was released contrary to intent means that someone screwed up. It does not mean that what is written can be interpreted as what was intended. Interpreting the wildshape rules as RAI is like interpreting that dog over there as a bear. And I know this is a joke. You can't seriously be saying, after I've said multiple times in this thread that I house rule the hell out this game, that if I read RAW that I'm going to always go with what is written over what I think is best. [/QUOTE]

Verification