Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3357557" data-attributes="member: 1656">I think there will always be those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules - see the recent 'Hasted Zombie' thread for an example.If I say &quot;A longsword deals slashing damage&quot;, there will always be someone who says &quot;But what if you hit them with the pommel?&nbsp; The rules are unclear, so there's room for interpretation.&quot;&nbsp; But the rules aren't unclear; a longsword deals slashing damage.&nbsp; I don't think there is 'room for interpretation'; if you're using what the book says, the damage is slashing.&nbsp; If you take the -4 to deal nonlethal damage, it might be described as striking with the flat of the blade, or the pommel, or whatever... and the nonlethal damage will be 1d8 Slashing.Now, the damage type of a longsword is about as clear and straightforward a rule as you're likely to find... and there will still be people who say &quot;The rule is open to interpretation&quot; when what they mean is &quot;I disagree with the rule&quot;.&nbsp; So when we take a rule that requires combining information from several places in the core rules to come to a conclusion, it strikes me as not at all surprising that more people will find that rule 'open to interpretation'.But that doesn't mean I agree that those people are right that more than one valid interpretation exists, once the rules as a whole are considered.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3357557, member: 1656"] I think there will always be those that view that there is some room for interpretation in the rules - see the recent 'Hasted Zombie' thread for an example. If I say "A longsword deals slashing damage", there will always be someone who says "But what if you hit them with the pommel? The rules are unclear, so there's room for interpretation." But the rules aren't unclear; a longsword deals slashing damage. I don't think there is 'room for interpretation'; if you're using what the book says, the damage is slashing. If you take the -4 to deal nonlethal damage, it might be described as striking with the flat of the blade, or the pommel, or whatever... and the nonlethal damage will be 1d8 Slashing. Now, the damage type of a longsword is about as clear and straightforward a rule as you're likely to find... and there will still be people who say "The rule is open to interpretation" when what they mean is "I disagree with the rule". So when we take a rule that requires combining information from several places in the core rules to come to a conclusion, it strikes me as not at all surprising that more people will find that rule 'open to interpretation'. But that doesn't mean I agree that those people are right that more than one valid interpretation exists, [i]once the rules as a whole[/i] are considered. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification