Quote Originally Posted by tkuremento View Post
Yea, there are many times I could have stooped to such a level and thrown insults related to salt or why someone seems negative or hateful on all their posts even beyond this thread.
I'm more trying to police myself to make sure I don't inadvertently imply something insulting. Like it's somehow badwrongfun to want to change the rules. That's fine and dandy. Just as not changing the rules is fine and dandy. Wanting roleplaying bound to classes (ie strong archetypes) is fine, as is wanting it to be disassociated. Insisting that one or the other is somehow badwrongfun is easy to imply, especially since lots of people take using the terms RAW or house-rule to mean exactly that, even if it's not meant.

What I AM doing is saying: look, this is the words written in the book, which (by my definition of what it means) makes it the Rule as Written. Even the Sage Advice tells you this, and explains why it's the written rule ... and then says if you want to run a Druid that is an exception, talk to your DM. That doesn't mean it's suddenly not the Rule as Written. It just means the DM is the person who arbitrates which rules as written should be followed, and which can be changed.