Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7625145" data-attributes="member: 6999115">The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the official interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the official interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI.The developer says nothing in the game system stops them. The developer says they do not lack the ability to do so. It is a choice, not a physical limitation. This is exactly how many people read the rule as printed in the PHB, which is why it was controversial enough that the Sage Advice addressed it. If a Druid says they're going to do so, and you say they can't, that's not the game system stopping them; that's you arbitrarily stopping them. It's no different than if an Oath of Devotion Paladin felt it appropriate to lie in a given situation, and you as a DM said, &quot;No. You can't use Deception in this case because it goes against your tenet of honesty.&quot; It's also no different than if a Monk player at the table played like a murder hobo, and got greedy with treasure, suddenly had their levels stripped away because the character creation lore says that as a rule they will not be a murder hobo. That's not a game limitation, that's the DM choosing to enforce something outside of the RAW, which is fine, but it's still not RAW.Sure, and in my experience, many GMs apparently don't know how to properly read a sentence, or utilize much common sense. If you assume, &quot;I can't drink milk because it gives me gas,&quot; means that it is a scientific law that milk can never enter my body, instead of assuming it means I have the ability to drink milk, but that as a result I will have gas, you fall into one or both of those categories.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ohmyn, post: 7625145, member: 6999115"] The issue is that as written it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The developer of the game clarified the [I]official[/I] interpretation of the rule, and you disagree with the [I]official[/I] interpretation based on the lore that existed in past editions that are now outdated by two editions over the last decade. That's fine, but don't claim the official clarification, as stated by the game's rules designer and then published by WotC on their site, is less RAW than your RAI. The developer says nothing in the game system stops them. The developer says they do not lack the ability to do so. It is a [I]choice, [/I]not a physical limitation. This is exactly how many people read the rule as printed in the PHB, which is why it was controversial enough that the Sage Advice addressed it. If a Druid says they're going to do so, and you say they can't, that's not the game system stopping them; that's [I]you[/I] arbitrarily stopping them. It's no different than if an Oath of Devotion Paladin felt it appropriate to lie in a given situation, and you as a DM said, "No. You can't use Deception in this case because it goes against your tenet of honesty." It's also no different than if a Monk player at the table played like a murder hobo, and got greedy with treasure, suddenly had their levels stripped away because the character creation lore says that as a rule they will not be a murder hobo. That's not a game limitation, that's the DM choosing to enforce something outside of the RAW, which is fine, but it's still not RAW. Sure, and in my experience, many GMs apparently don't know how to properly read a sentence, or utilize much common sense. If you assume, "I can't drink milk because it gives me gas," means that it is a scientific law that milk can never enter my body, instead of assuming it means I have the ability to drink milk, but that as a result I will have gas, you fall into one or both of those categories. [/QUOTE]

Verification