Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7962508" data-attributes="member: 71699">I believe you might have missed what I am discussing. The question is not one of the reasonableness of tiny creatures not wielding heavy weapons. All that needs to be acknowledged in that regard is that prior to the errata, sans hidden rules (common sense), only small creatures were prevented by RAW from wielding heavy weapons. That doesn't mean the rules should be played that way or even made the most sense that way, it only means that taken literally the RAW entailed precisely that.The reason this is an interesting case is exactly because everyone agrees on the RAI (myself included). I am suggesting that this means we are all happy for errata to change RAW so long as we agree on the RAI. What about when we don't agree on the RAI then? Are we still quite so happy for errata to change RAW. There is clear evidence in this thread that we are not.That is what I am discussing. I'd like to move on from being laser-focused on the RAI for tiny creatures. It's really not important beyond the most basic, rules lawyer-ish concessions.</blockquote>