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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3058573" data-attributes="member: 35788">It does not make your point murkier.  Rather, I would argue that a deviation from the rules is a deviation from the rules.  Its either RAW, or its not.  And if its not, its a House Rule.By using your INA argument, I think what you might have better luck going after is the following division:1. RAW2. RAW + your own interpretations on vague points that could go either way3. RAW + House Rules4. What are rules, anyway?There are some debates where RAW is less than clear.  Whether an monks unarmed strike is a natural weapon, for example, is one of the murkiest.  Another one brought up in that argument is whether INA can be used to improve any attack or just the natural weapon.  [For example, can a minotaur monk use INA only to benefit their Gore attack or can they use the feat to benefit their unarmed strike damage?]On these points (rare as they are) there is no clear right or wrong.  Both sides do have valid points.  Thus, neither is against the RAW, although both sides would agree that the other is clearly a house rule!  To me, this gray area is different than a House Rule.I hope this helps you understand why those of us objecting to the "Casual Play" terminology are doing so.EDIT:I should add, however, that in my four categories I think #2 and #3 are different.  You could have two players who believe they are playing by RAW with no houserules, yet differ on the murkier points.  They would be in category #2 most likely.  #3 would be people who know the RAW and intentionally deviate from a bit of the RAW even if the intent of the rules are clear.  For example, my Dodge Feat rewrite above or eliminating the favored Class part of the rules.</blockquote>

Verification