Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7036398" data-attributes="member: 16814">Firstly, I'm not in your classroom.&nbsp; Given you appear to have an endpoint in mind, perhaps you could just advance that instead of the Socrates questioning?But, to play along for a bit more:1.&nbsp; None.&nbsp; If you actually read my posts you'd have noticed I called your ruling extremely reasonable.2.&nbsp; No, strictly speaking.&nbsp; The default to situations not covered by the rules is that it's not covered, make a ruling.&nbsp; You can look to other things on the rules for guidance, but the thing about not being RAW is that it's not RAW.&nbsp; Tautoligies are fun.3. Yes, they provide guidance.&nbsp; It's &quot;ask your DM.&quot;&nbsp; If you're the DM, it's, &quot;here's some stuff, make up your own mind.&quot;&nbsp; Regardless of whatever guidance you imagine exists, the DM'S ruling is what counts when it's not covered by RAW.&nbsp; If you disagree with your DM, I don't suggest you follow this line of argumentation.4.&nbsp; Yup, 100%.&nbsp; The RAW wasn't clear, so I get to make a ruling.&nbsp; Totally supported by the rules, and 100% valid at my table.&nbsp; And, to be clear, I think your ruling us exactly as good, here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7036398, member: 16814"] Firstly, I'm not in your classroom. Given you appear to have an endpoint in mind, perhaps you could just advance that instead of the Socrates questioning? But, to play along for a bit more: 1. None. If you actually read my posts you'd have noticed I called your ruling extremely reasonable. 2. No, strictly speaking. The default to situations not covered by the rules is that it's not covered, make a ruling. You can look to other things on the rules for guidance, but the thing about not being RAW is that it's not RAW. Tautoligies are fun. 3. Yes, they provide guidance. It's "ask your DM." If you're the DM, it's, "here's some stuff, make up your own mind." Regardless of whatever guidance you imagine exists, the DM'S ruling is what counts when it's not covered by RAW. If you disagree with your DM, I don't suggest you follow this line of argumentation. 4. Yup, 100%. The RAW wasn't clear, so I get to make a ruling. Totally supported by the rules, and 100% valid at my table. And, to be clear, I think your ruling us exactly as good, here. [/QUOTE]

Verification