Dragonwrought kobold

[Gruftzwerg]

If the rules are written consistently so that things apply the same way in every case, is that not rules as written?

Does it need to be explicitly stated when it's explicitly shown?

For Rules As Intended, no you don't need to explicitly state it and may imply it.

For Rules As Written, yes. Without clear introductions, you may not extrapolate rules, just because it is consistent. RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.
edit: have a look at draconomicon p144 "other true dragons". There you have explicit rules where you are forced to extrapolate infos from tables. The rules say so if you have to, otherwise you may not do it by RAW.
end of edit:


Again, RAW doesn't has to be how people actually play at tables, so don't mix these things up pls. We all play "how the DM sees the rules" and not RAW. Even if the DM is claiming that he wants to play RAW. Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW. Do you really want to play with things like "healing by drowning"? I guess not.
But that doesn't change this discussion. The forum prefers to make RAW claims since it makes other discussions more easy (e.g. TO threads). RAI can be often viewed from different positions and thus leaves to many problems when you want to discuss things in the forum in a competitive way. And thus people try to separate RAW and RAI.