Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6872324" data-attributes="member: 23751">How is that a problem?&nbsp; Rulings are not a part of RAW.&nbsp; Ever.&nbsp; Not one ruling on something a rule does not cover is written in the rules, therefore it cannot by definition be RAWRITTEN.It's very reasonable and most or all DMs I know would rule that way.&nbsp; It's not RAW, though.&nbsp; It literally can't be.&nbsp; RAW is what is written.&nbsp; Any ruling, no matter how common or reasonable that is not written, cannot be RAW.&nbsp; If it changes a mechanic, and they usually do, they are also a house rule.&nbsp; That change is good only at your table.Other than the absolutist language you mean.&nbsp; There is no language present that indicates that they are only things that might be measured.&nbsp; What is written says that those things are it. None of that is in conflict.&nbsp; Let's see...&nbsp; We have reasoning, ability to reason logic and deductive reasoning.&nbsp; All the same thing, but with different ways to say it.&nbsp; Then we have memory, accuracy of recall and memory.&nbsp; Again, all different ways of saying the exact same thing.&nbsp; Then we have mental acuity.&nbsp; The one thing that is a bit of an oddbal, but not really when you look at it, is education which is a combination of memory (remembering what you learned) and the ability to reason (put that education to use).&nbsp; So no, there is no change whatsoever from occurrence to occurrence.&nbsp; All occurrences use the same three things from the definitive definition.The ability to focus and understand is more of a meta-aspect.&nbsp; It aids the others.Yes, it's under ability to reason.&nbsp; Why call the others out?&nbsp; Maybe it was context.&nbsp; Maybe it was simply because the other chose to for aesthetic reasons.&nbsp; It doesn't matter since they are all the same thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6872324, member: 23751"] How is that a problem? Rulings are not a part of RAW. Ever. Not one ruling on something a rule does not cover is written in the rules, therefore it cannot by definition be RAWRITTEN. It's very reasonable and most or all DMs I know would rule that way. It's not RAW, though. It literally can't be. RAW is what is written. Any ruling, no matter how common or reasonable that is not written, cannot be RAW. If it changes a mechanic, and they usually do, they are also a house rule. That change is good only at your table. Other than the absolutist language you mean. There is no language present that indicates that they are only things that might be measured. What is written says that those things are it. None of that is in conflict. Let's see... We have reasoning, ability to reason logic and deductive reasoning. All the same thing, but with different ways to say it. Then we have memory, accuracy of recall and memory. Again, all different ways of saying the exact same thing. Then we have mental acuity. The one thing that is a bit of an oddbal, but not really when you look at it, is education which is a combination of memory (remembering what you learned) and the ability to reason (put that education to use). So no, there is no change whatsoever from occurrence to occurrence. All occurrences use the same three things from the definitive definition. The ability to focus and understand is more of a meta-aspect. It aids the others. Yes, it's under ability to reason. Why call the others out? Maybe it was context. Maybe it was simply because the other chose to for aesthetic reasons. It doesn't matter since they are all the same thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification