Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jackinthegreen" data-source="post: 6259201" data-attributes="member: 6678119">And why do you feel that your interpretation should be the only one used?&nbsp; Because your own experiences, opinions, and interpretations trump others'?&nbsp; Such hubris!If there can be multiple different, but possibly correct, interpretations of a rule then saying one of them is &quot;RAW&quot; is meaningless because the others could very well be &quot;RAW&quot; too.&nbsp; Then again, I often find any kind of RAW discussion is meaningless.&nbsp; Effectively, what RAW really means is &quot;The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah.&quot; (Taken from <a href="http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4136.0" target="_blank">The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization</a>.)&nbsp; The game can't be played strictly RAW because it was meant for humans with common sense to play, not robot rules lawyers.&nbsp; Do you also rule that monks have a -4 on attack rolls with unarmed strikes because by RAW they aren't proficient in them?&nbsp; I should hope not!What is the correct way of playing this?&nbsp; The way that works best for the table, which might not be the way that's strictly presented in the book if the interpretation of the way the book presents it can even be agreed upon in the first place.&nbsp; How do we figure that out?&nbsp; By looking at it from different points of view, figuring out what the pros and cons are of each, and then offering those possibilities to the group to see what works best for them if the group really feels it's worth going over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jackinthegreen, post: 6259201, member: 6678119"] And why do you feel that your interpretation should be the only one used? Because your own experiences, opinions, and interpretations trump others'? Such hubris! If there can be multiple different, but possibly correct, interpretations of a rule then saying one of them is "RAW" is meaningless because the others could very well be "RAW" too. Then again, I often find any kind of RAW discussion is meaningless. Effectively, what RAW really means is "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." (Taken from [url=http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4136.0]The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization[/url].) The game can't be played strictly RAW because it was meant for humans with common sense to play, not robot rules lawyers. Do you also rule that monks have a -4 on attack rolls with unarmed strikes because by RAW they aren't proficient in them? I should hope not! What is the correct way of playing this? The way that works best for the table, which might not be the way that's strictly presented in the book if the interpretation of the way the book presents it can even be agreed upon in the first place. How do we figure that out? By looking at it from different points of view, figuring out what the pros and cons are of each, and then offering those possibilities to the group to see what works best for them if the group really feels it's worth going over. [/QUOTE]

Verification