Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7962390" data-attributes="member: 71699">This is a strange argument to bring at this point. I am exactly speaking from a perspective of the rules lawyer. I am pointing out that the simulationist argument relies on an unwritten consensus about what is being simulated. That makes it subjective. Objectively, the original RAW entails only that small creatures cannot use heavy weapons.I have already conceded the common-sense point, and that has nothing to do with what is interesting about the discussion at hand. Which is entirely focused on what job errata is justified in doing? There was earlier in the thread a point made that errata is unjustified in changing rules. The value of the heavy weapon example is how it stands in contrast to the healing spirit example. We agree only by common sense that tiny creatures shouldn't ever have been allowed to use heavy weapons. So the errata seems fine. But not all players agree that healing spirit should be 1+mod uses. So the errata seems... not fine?I state the above in detail so that others joining the thread at this point might avoid misapprehending what is contended.</blockquote>