Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8177164" data-attributes="member: 177">However, for D&amp;D, those changes do not generally make it into the next printing.As stated earlier - our discussions must allow for folks who work with the rules as originally printed, as well as for those who prefer to incorporate the errata.&nbsp; Working without the errata is totally legitimate, and if you intend to rhetorically beat someone over the head with errata to make them accept your point, or suggest that there's some moral superiority to using them, there's going to be problems.So, can we not go into all shouting of bold text, please AND THANK YOU?In the end, in a game that starts with &quot;rulings, not rules&quot; and a 40+ year long tradition of homebrewing and houseruling, you cannot lean on RAW as, &quot;this is correct and everyone else can shut up.&quot;&nbsp; Proving what is RAW is less important than demonstrating what works better at the table and why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8177164, member: 177"] However, for D&D, those changes do not generally make it into the next printing. As stated earlier - our discussions must allow for folks who work with the rules as originally printed, as well as for those who prefer to incorporate the errata. Working without the errata is totally legitimate, and if you intend to rhetorically beat someone over the head with errata to make them accept your point, or suggest that there's some moral superiority to using them, there's going to be problems. So, can we [B]not go into all shouting of bold text, please [I]AND THANK YOU?[/I][/B] In the end, in a game that starts with "rulings, not rules" and a 40+ year long tradition of homebrewing and houseruling, you cannot lean on RAW as, "this is correct and everyone else can shut up." Proving what is RAW is less important than demonstrating what works better at the table and why. [/QUOTE]

Verification