Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
No it isn't, as was explained several times.

There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,

You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.





This is by far the most ironic thing you have posted in this entire thread.

As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.

The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.
You seem to think that RAW is something supposed to free of bugs but ain't the chase. Have a look at the Rules Dysfunction series here in the forum.
If RAW ain't rule-lawyering, than what is "healing by drowning" as simple example again? Rules as intended? I bet not. It is RAW and it makes no sense at all (in real word terms) and no table would actually play with it (beside for a few fun sessions maybe..).
RAW ain't the holy grail of rules where everything stops making problems and start to harmonize everywhere. In fact, the opposite is the chase. 3.5 RAW is a mess (maybe only 5% is messed up, but that 5% is enough to cause problems like this one here..), and if you can't handle that, then I'm sorry for you.

There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,
You only "fall back" to thinks like contextual definitions and common sense if the rules don't cover something up. But that is not the chase here. We can prove that DWK are not lesser dragons, and we can prove that DWK are true dragons by the definition of Dracoconicon P.4.
And this interpretation even harmonies with the "other true dragon" paragraph on p144. While your interpretation would cause a dysfunction. But you are still ignoring that fact and just focus on your attempt to disprove them DWK. Would you stop deciding the outcome in advance? You don't follow your own advices..
How about stopping your attempt to disprove DWK true dragon status for just a moment and try to explain the dysfuntion caused by your interpretation? Would you be so kind?

You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.
Imho it's you who is showing this behavior here.
While I am open for other interpretation and views (see the other thread where I was convinced that Whirlwind can be viewed in another way), you are sitting on your arguments and don't wanna change em as it seems. You assume that RAW has to work and involves common sense. Where is the common sense of "healing by drowning"? There is none. Only in the world of RAW & rule-lawyering. It has nothing to do with RAI.

You change word into keywords to make your point look more valid, but that is something that belongs to RAI and not to RAW. Get the difference. You are always talking about RAI and keep arguing that it is RAW.

If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
Explain it pls