Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2598699" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, in my mind there are two issues actually.  One, can a harpy fly with very wet wings.  The other, which, to me is far more relavent, can a Harpy take off from water.  Now, since a Harpy really can't fly anyway, the whole wet wings thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  However, talons don't work so well for taking off from water, so, I ruled no.  The point is, this is a situation which is not covered in the RAW, so it requires a DM ruling.  It's not even remotely touched on in the RAW, so you cannot reasonably expect to extrapolate from existing rules.  So, the DM steps in and does the deed.However, when there are existing rules which cover the situation, IMO, there's nothing wrong with the players expecting those rules to be followed.  A recent conversation in another thread had a DM who got rid of the Flat Footed rules.  Simple enough change I suppose.  He wanted to streamline combat and didn't want to constantly deal with different AC's.  However, that simple change has major effects.  The biggest effect is the fact that a rogue can now only sneak attack if he is flanking.  This means that a lone rogue can NEVER sneak attack.  This is a huge effect.  Any player playing a rogue would be well within his rights to blow a gasket.  Imagine if a DM ruled that a mage could never cast spells unless he was accompanied by an ally.  Here's an example where a DM is pretty definitively in the wrong.  Stripping away a major ability of a class without any compensation is not good.  Being DM does not make anyone right.  It means that your word is final, that's true, but, it doesn't make you right.3e has meant that my arguement time around the table has gone from about 30% of game time to about 1%.  I've just run 10 straight sessions of the World's Largest Dungeon.  I've had one rules arguement and I was wrong.  My players pointed out to me in the rules where I made my mistake.  IIRC, it was whether or not you could take a 5 foot adjustment after standing from prone.  Today's session saw the orc barbarian try to take a 5 foot step to cleave - and got shot down.  It works both ways.  Being able to end disagreements in about 1 minute is why I play 3e.  For those who talk about having to go through multiple supplements, well, I suppose if you used Arcana Unearthed or something like that, it would make sense.  But, then again, shouldn't the alternative rules be listed all in one book?  If I'm using DR rules for armor, for example, aren't those rules all listed in one section of the same book?  What situation would require me to look for answers in more than one book?</blockquote>

Verification