Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wayne62682" data-source="post: 4377607" data-attributes="member: 40455">I'm afraid I'm not seeing what the big issue is.  Quoting RAW is a good thing in my eyes, because they're the rules.  Sure, you have the occassional jerk who tries to weasel some nonsense in through exact wording, but I think this only really happens on internet discussions, and not in real life.  The only times I see RAW invoked as others have mentioned is to demonstrate how to exploit a loophole, shoot down some idiot's lamebrained idea by showing it's not possible, or rarely as a veiled trolling attempt to show that <x> Edition sucks because of some obscure rule.But then again, I'm very much against house rules.  I hate them for the sole reason that the vast majority of time someone I've gamed with has a list of house rules, it's a bunch of useless garbage that exists because the person writing them either A) Is some old school grognard who is mad that WotC changed <insert silly rule from O/1st/2nd edition D&D> and thinks that the lack of it dumbs down the game, B) Dislikes most everything WotC does because it makes no sense/dumbs down the game/makes it more videogame-y/other whining reason, or C) Wants to add more "realism"  to the game because they dislike the idea that with a high enough skill you can never, ever fail some checks, or because players know what their hit points are and using a hit point scale with vague terms fixes that.In other words, most house rules are useless crap cooked up by someone who sees a perceived fault where none exists and probably suffers from what we call in programming NIH:  Not Invented Here (self-explanatory; the idea that anything beyond the bare minimum needs to  be customized for your own use, instead of using what already exists and tweaking it).</blockquote>

Verification