Paul Farquhar
Legend
"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.It would have nipped that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
"The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.It would have nipped that argument in the bud.
But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? If the Flumph is non-aligned, doesn't have a label and with only a wee bit of fluff text, it may not be an easy task for a new DM to decide how to use it in an encounter.Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things."The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
I didn't say I liked the change. But it doesn't really affect me, since I stat up monsters however I like.But isn't one of the arguments for doing away with spell lists that it makes it easier for new players? I
I paid good money for 1st edition!DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete
If the DM thinks something is absurd then their ruling is to disallow it. Simple. Meanwhile, on a different table, the DM can rule that shield-surfing down a staircase whilst shooting a bow is just fine.when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.
WHOA. You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED."The DM makes a ruling" nips that argument in the bud.
It's only people who can't accept "rulings not rules" who waste time arguing about it.
What mythical or literary archetypes is a beholder or a rust monster being build around?Why should monsters be "built" to do anything in particular? D&D monsters are built around literary and mythical archetypes, not combat roles. Once you have your archetype statted up the DM can look at what it can do and then decide how to use it in an encounter.
I think one of the interesting troubles WOTC ran into is that people change, swap, or play with different DMs a lot more now. And a lot more new DMs.In my experience the people who don't want "rulings not rules" are overwhelmingly DMs who didn't pay good money and spend good time learning a game only to find out the game was incomplete and wanted them to fix it on obvious interactions rather than be able to use it as a solid foundation when the PCs come up with absurd plans to limit test things.
Pretty sure I didn't. I've always been a rulings person.You just argued with me over and over again that the Monster Manual was RULES and that the RULES MUST NOT BE CHANGED.