Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6394637" data-attributes="member: 2525">Both responses are the same response, phrased in a different way, with one offering expanded explanation.  The rule was intentionally left to interpretation.  So the response of "The DM can interpret the rule, so it's not a problem" is accurate and not flawed - you described that the rule was left open to interpretation, and that reasonable interpretations are available to deal with the issue that arose, so it ends up not being a problem.  You can go into more detail on why the rule was left to interpretation, and that is the first answer.  But that's just expanding on the response - the response is not flawed without the expanded answer.  If the rule were phrased in a way that didn't leave interpretation open, then saying "interpret the rule, so it's not a problem" might indeed be flawed (that is your next argument).  But if the rule was left to interpretation, then there is no flaw in an argument that says you interpret the rules, so it's not a problem.  But that's not the context we were discussing.  You said, "Whenever RAI (Rules as Intended) arguments come up, they sometimes stray into Oberoni Fallacy territory." However, the Monk example has nothing to do with interpreting the intent of the rules or apply common sense to an existing interpretation of the rules. You're not interpreting any rule to increase damage, for instance.</blockquote>