|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.
A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.
Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.
My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.
I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.
Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.