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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3132195" data-attributes="member: 2011">The problem is on your end.If I do not agree with you, or do not focus on what you consider important in a debate, or even totally dismiss what you are saying, it does not mean I do not understand it. Nor does you claiming a dozen times that I do not understand you mean that I do not understand you.Your language is clear enough.Your basis for your assumption is what I find lacking.You claim that a supplement that comes out and states that flying underwater is allowed would not be a change to the core rules (since there is no explicit rules language that flying cannot be done underwater).I claim that a supplement that comes out and states that flying underwater is allowed would be a change to the core rules (since there is explicit rules language that flying cannot be done underwater due to the fact that it can only be done in air).We have a difference of opinion on that.So, a supplement can come out and have such a rule, it can be used by DMs, and it would still disagree with core RAW. It would still be a valid WotC rule, but it would not agree with core RAW. They would be changing the rule. IMO.It wouldn't disagree with core RAW and would not be changing the rule for you, it would be adding to the rules.Did you have another point you were trying to make?Or are you yet again going to claim that I do not understand you because I do not agree with you? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification