I of course don’t know for sure why they weren’t clearer
Isnt there written somewhere in those rules that they arent supposed to be taken by letter, but more like loose guide?
I mean ... we dont really need them to contrading themselves, do we?
Sorry, @Ragnarok, I don’t understand your last question quoted here?
Obviously any table or game can homebrew or interpret rules differently, sticking as close or not to the rules as written as they wish.
But what I’m trying to understand is the rules as intended. The rules as written, personally if absolutely forced to pick I would interpret as meaning that multiple attacks can be replaced by shoves in one turn as that is not explicitly and unambiguously ruled out, but I’m not sure if that’s how we’re expected to use RAW and don’t know if there’s guidance on this. But I’d still prefer some clarification on the rules as intended given that the rules as written have been interpreted in different ways by different folk both here and more generally, and confirmation of rules as intended could only come from the writers.
I accept that both rules as written and rules as intended might be different from rules as I (or anyone else) want to see implemented in BG3, but I still want to know what the former are! I personally like that as a starting point from which to then consider whether a departure would be better for game balance or player experience in BG3, and do see a particular implementation being in line with RAW/RAI as a consideration in favour of it, even if not always a conclusive one.
