[Magic] Double Checking Some Rules Mistakes

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Did you mean to link to something else? What you did link to appears to me to be a total (indeed a comprehensive) non-sequiter.

Also, what is "RAI"?

RAI - Rules As Intended, as opposed to Rules As Written. I think he linked to the comic to show an example of what happens when you take a literal view of the rules instead of an interpreted-as-they-were-intended view.

To an earlier point, scc had mentioned enchanting rules in DF... is this a layer supplement, cause I could have sworn the early ones had “PCs don’t enchant. Period.” on the spell list.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

RAI - Rules As Intended, as opposed to Rules As Written. I think he linked to the comic to show an example of what happens when you take a literal view of the rules instead of an interpreted-as-they-were-intended view.

The change in 4e to rules about what you can use for "Powerstones" looks very deliberate as opposed to random and I have no doubt the Line editor signed off on exactly the words seen in 4e. There's no way they can _not_ be Rules As (he) Intended.

I beleive the objecting gentleman is in soem realm of "Rules As I Beleive They Should Be" but that doesn't make a catchy TLA.

The comic looked to me like an example of persons creating a very complex set of rules without considering all the possible combinations. nothign to do with making one change to the Powerstone rules. Incidentally, I have done some of those unexpected FEAT combinations in D&D 3.5 so I know how that goes.