Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JustinA" data-source="post: 3530848" data-attributes="member: 51618">I prefer to be a literalist. By which I mean that I would prefer for the rules to be written in a clear and unambiguous fashion which allows me to use them literally every single time.In reality, of course, there are rules which are written ambiguously and must be interpreted because they are not clear and unambiguous. If a RAW has more than one possible interpretation then you have to start using common sense, looking at the intent of the rule, and considering which interpretation makes for better gameplay.The only other place I'm open to interpretation is when I believe I'm looking at a failure to consider the dynamic nature of the game system. (Generally this takes the form of a statement attempting to clarify the primary rule, but which inadvertently makes an assumption that a general case will always hold when it's actually contradicted by a feat or a spell or a special ability.)An example of this just came up in another thread: Under the Handle Animal skill it says that training an animal for combat riding replaces all of the mount's previous tricks and purposes. IMO, it is clear that this was written because animals have a maximum Intelligence of 2 and can only know 3 tricks per point of Intelligence. Thus the six tricks which comprise combat riding would chew up a normal animal's trick limit. Since combat riding also replaces the training for a riding mount (which includes a trick -- Stay -- which is not included in combat riding), the rule is there to stop any possibility of someone thinking they get an extra trick.But the rule ignores the fact that the animal companions get bonus tricks. So an animal companion could easily be trained in combat riding and still have tricks left over. It would be stupid, in my opinion, to interpret that rule in such a way that an animal companion would unnecessarily lose bonus tricks and need to be retrained.</blockquote>

Verification