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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 7969542" data-attributes="member: 7019027">Well, I didn't mean that RAW and RAI are connected and if something is RAW it must be RAI. I'm saying that the way that it is written is the way it's written. You can't say "Attacking is a free action" is RAW because that's not what is written. Likewise, you can say "The DM decides treasure" is RAW because that's what's written RAI, on the other hand is separate but seen as more valuable. It shows how the designers balanced the game, which if ignored can unbalance the game. You can't really measure RAI without clear RAW. Even Crawford only represents only a portion of RAI, I doubt he knows exactly what the subdivision of creators intended when designing a rule. Heck, they might not have even thought of the questions and have no clue how they intend to deal with it. If neither or them truly matters, how can you ensure consistency. How can you confidently say "All beastmaster's companions add proficiency bonuses to all saving throws, including death saves." Or "Dim light imposes disadvantage to passive Perception even if there's a chance they can be heard." This is my overall problem with the system. While the surface of it is simplified, the closer inspections leave glaring holes that the DM is expected to patch themselves. But DM's aren't game designers. They can't tell if their adjustments are OP, undermine a player's features, or are just plain unfun. People have to look up what the requirements for Wish means because there's no guidance in the books. And they'll have to rely on what we say about it, choosing one and hoping it doesn't break anything or frustrate the players. And if it does do those things, the blame is placed on them since they can't really reference the book with a clear interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification