Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 385575" data-attributes="member: 2525">No, they are not "core" books, but they are official books, which is what I said.  And they are relevant to the core rules, since they are from the same official source (WOTC) about the same subjects (in this case, slings).You can take or leave any material, even "core" rules material.  And I say the listing of sling as a projectile-only weapon, instead of both projectile and thrown, is an unfortunate quip and not supposed to encompass 100% of the effects of a weapon (it's just supposed to be a helpful chart).Actually, unless you are referring to the chart, if you actually look at the section that details what a sling is in the PHB, that is in fact where you find the text about the sling being the halflings favored weapon, and text about the use of a sling to throw stones (and then the text on halflings in the PHB is where you find the bonus to thrown weapons from the game of throwing stones).  The PHB lends credibility to the argument that a sling is both a projectile and thrown weapon.You can dislike WOTC customer service, but it IS the place to go to ask rules questions.  From WOTC website, under the section titled: "Wizards Game Rules Clarification and Questions"First, I didn't ask, I am just responding (like you).  Second, your view of what is "correct" is exactly what I am talking about.  Strict constructionists tend to worship the PHB as if it is a biblical text, than no other text (other that "official errata" that is placed into the "official errata" text) can alter or interpret.Moderate and liberal constructionists do what the rest of the non-strict constructionist people in the world do with all rules, including the laws of society.  Sometimes parol evidence (look it up) is both useful and a legitemate source of rules interpetations and changes.  In this case, when WOTC is the author of the rule, and WOTC publishes an additional book for use with those rules that seems to alter those rules, and then when WOTC tells you what the best source for rules interpretation is for their own rules (WOTC customer service), and that Customer Service also says the rule should be interpreted in a particular way that is in agreement with that supplement, then you now have a reasonable iterpretation of that rule that disagrees with the PHB.  It isn't "incorrect" to intepret the rule that way, and it isn't a house rule.  It is just as correct as your interpretation of the rule without use of parol evidence.  But you strict constructionists keep pounding that podium and preaching "it is commanded that thou shalt worship no other rules text before the core rules text".  I applaud you for your consistency at least.</blockquote>

Verification