Pitiful Monk, your speed impresses me not.

[Pielorinho]

I think this thread reflects one of the few things I dislike about 3E. It seems to have reduced DM's ability to think for themselves.

To be fair, I and lots of other people houserule things we don't like, but still like to know what the official rules are.

A lot of playtesting went into 3E, and so it's worth finding out how it's "supposed" to work before changing that. Sometimes houserules can have unintended consequences.

That said, in some places, the game is pretty obviously unclear -- and expeditious retreat is one of those places. Since there's a contradiction in the spell, it's hard for us to know with what powers the spell was balanced, and both sides of the argument are working on speculation.

In these cases, there's no real point to arguing what the official rule is: unless we get someone official to give input, then we're left without guidance as to how the spell is balanced, and need to decide on our own.

I'll probably rule that it affects any kind of movement, unless that turns out to break the game. And it might: i've found my PCs at their nastiest when they achieve superior mobility. OTOH, it's the fighters and clerics that become deadly with great mobility, usually; I dunno how deadly a mage becomes with (for example) improved flight.

Daniel

 

[IceBear]

I agree with Daniel

IceBear

 

[Vander]

I think this thread reflects one of the few things I dislike about 3E. It seems to have reduced DM's ability to think for themselves. 3E has done a lot to tie up loop holes, answer question, tighten rules abuses, and quantify everything. Which often times means that DM's rather than making their own judgement view the 3E PHB as if it were holy scripture, incapable of being incorrect.

Before 3E everything wasn't spelled out, things had to be tweaked all the time. Judgement calls were a fact of life, and lots of things didn't have associated rules. Look at ER it's a first level spell, it's already led to the most broken magic item in the DMG (boots of striding and springing) perhaps those people who think it should be applied to flying think that it hasn't caused enough damage.

And if you need an in game justification most of these creatures that ER could really be abused on already have the equivlant of supernatural movement, which I would have no problem declaring an enhancement bonus which therefore would not stack with ER.

The whole trend of well the rules don't say, ducks a large measure of the responsibility as a DM.

Amen brotha' (or sista'). Finally, someone making sense.

 

[Artoomis]

Amen brotha' (or sista'). Finally, someone making sense.

No, 3e has NOT taken out a DM's flexibility one wit. Instead, it's made it less arbitrary - you are given a balanced (more or less) system with lots of advice for making your own rulings - that sounds pretty reasonable to me. It's simple, really:

Step 1. Understand the rules as written (okay, we probably have too many rules for this to be easy).

Step 2. Change the rules as you like.

Doing it that way gives you a much greater chance of being "fair" and not arbitrary in your decisions.

Whoops - I think I'm engaged in thread-stealing. Sorry.

 

[Uller]

I think this thread reflects one of the few things I dislike about 3E. It seems to have reduced DM's ability to think for themselves. 3E has done a lot to tie up loop holes, answer question, tighten rules abuses, and quantify everything. Which often times means that DM's rather than making their own judgement view the 3E PHB as if it were holy scripture, incapable of being incorrect.

Are you really saying that clear rules = bad? Wow...Okay...let's scrap the rules: You''ve got players and a DM(or GM if you prefer). The players pretend to be fighters, wizards, etc... and tell the DM what they do. The DM tells them what happens. No troublesome rules to clutter everything up...

Granted...too many rules is a bad thing, as well, but I think 3e does a marvelous job of clearly defining things like bonus types and actions and what not. Sure we have different interpritations, but at least there is an easy way to tell what works with what without having to write everything out or make arbitrary rulings. That's a plus, IMO.

 

[EOL]

Are you really saying that clear rules = bad? Wow...Okay...let's scrap the rules: You''ve got players and a DM(or GM if you prefer). The players pretend to be fighters, wizards, etc... and tell the DM what they do. The DM tells them what happens. No troublesome rules to clutter everything up...

Granted...too many rules is a bad thing, as well, but I think 3e does a marvelous job of clearly defining things like bonus types and actions and what not. Sure we have different interpritations, but at least there is an easy way to tell what works with what without having to write everything out or make arbitrary rulings. That's a plus, IMO.

No I'm saying clear rules are great and they've made things a lot better, but they've also reduced a DM's ability to make judgement calls when things are unclear as they are with ER.

Most of the discussions on this board are very tied into semantics, very few people feel comfortable anymore championing an idea because it makes the most sense.

I love 3E and would never go back to a previous edition, but sometimes there are moments when it's not as clear as it could be and then I think it's important to fall back on the instincts we developed with 1E and 2E and trust our instincts.

You are now returned to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[hong]

No I'm saying clear rules are great and they've made things a lot better, but they've also reduced a DM's ability to make judgement calls when things are unclear as they are with ER.

Most of the discussions on this board are very tied into semantics, very few people feel comfortable anymore championing an idea because it makes the most sense.

I love 3E and would never go back to a previous edition, but sometimes there are moments when it's not as clear as it could be and then I think it's important to fall back on the instincts we developed with 1E and 2E and trust our instincts.

You are now returned to your regularly scheduled thread.

I am old and my mind is growing dim (well, not that old), but I definitely recall that rules discussions could be just as ferocious under 1E and 2E rules. Even more ferocious, perhaps, because there were so many _more_ areas where the rules were fuzzy and relied on "common sense" to adjudicate. The problem with common sense is that it's one of those things that everyone thinks they have, and no-one else does.

3E perhaps carries the jargon a bit too far in some areas (check out the thread in the General discussion board on Sean Reynolds' rant on terminology), but overall I much prefer clear rules to fuzzy guidelines. As a DM, I can always fudge rules to enhance the gaming experience if need be. It's harder to go in the opposite direction, and make detached decisions when you haven't got a firm base to work from.

 

[Rogue]

Hrmm...

What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that the spell is Expeditious Retreat. If you cast it, you are only allowed to retreat. No other direction of movement is possible. It says it right in the spell name, so it has to be right!

Technically speaking, that is just a bad name. As in, the prereq's to make boots of striding and springing show ER... and those boots work no matter where you go, or how. Thus, you do not have to be retreating for the spell to work.

Smart-Ass

[EDIT] Hey, what the hell does that hole in the middle of the envelope mean? When yer at the DnD Rules forum, and looking over all the threads, take a peek at our envelope (far left column). See the hole? What's it mean? And just to note... this discussion has generated over a thousand views. Rock on!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In these cases, there's no real point to arguing what the official rule is: unless we get someone official to give input, then we're left without guidance as to how the spell is balanced, and need to decide on our own.

[ looks around the thread ]

official input, huh? ... and no one's bothered to ask the sage? [ shakes his head ]

*** thread hijacking ... continued ... ***

Originally posted by EOL
No I'm saying clear rules are great and they've made things a lot better, but they've also reduced a DM's ability to make judgement calls when things are unclear as they are with ER.

that made absolutely no sense at all ...

if they're clear rules, then they're not unclear, and the dm doesn't have to make a judgement call. the attack roll is a clear rule. you don't see many people discussing that mechanic. expeditious retreat is [apparently] unclear. i see a lot of judgment calls going on in this thread.

are you saying that, when encountered with an unclear rule, a dm is somehow not allowed (or has lost the ability to) make a judgement call, just because there are more clear than unclear rules in the game?

 

[EOL]

are you saying that, when encountered with an unclear rule, a dm is somehow not allowed (or has lost the ability to) make a judgement call, just because there are more clear than unclear rules in the game?

I'm saying that with 3E if something is encounted which is unclear the first instinct is to start parsing the semantics: is fleetness of foot an actual description or is it just flavor text, lets ask on the messageboards, has someone asked the sage? (something you're guilty of) Finally two weeks later some kind of consensus is reached.

Or on the other hand the DM looks at it says I don't think it should apply to flying or I think it should and 60 seconds later its over and done with.

The assumption with 3E is that everything must have a definitive absolute answer and we're going to analyze the question until we come to that absolute answer, when the question isn't even really that important. So that the DM rather than making a quick ruling and moving on feels he has to spend hours posting and responding to posts and e-mailing the sage. It's not terrible until it brings actual gameplay to a screeching halt, which in my experience sometimes happens.