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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3766376" data-attributes="member: 19857">QFT.I'm now old enough that I handle this the easy way - I limit the people who I invite to play at my table to people I know want to play the same kind of game that I want to run.  "Masters of the Rules Loophole" can find someone else's house to go to for a game.  But I know that's not an option for everyone.My take on balance is this - I expect the game designers to strive for balance in their games.  That's what I'm paying them for - to provide me a consistent rules set that makes for a fun game where I don't have to debate the meaning of every word in a spell description or the meaning of a particular verbiage used to describe a feat.  The words they use for these things should be clear and should mean what the designers intended them to mean - I shouldn't have to, as a random example, come up on the fly with a ruling as to whether the slickness conjured by a "grease" spell is just magical frictionlessness or real grease that the spellcaster can set on fire with a torch.  The designers have an intent behind the pieces they create, and that intent should be clearly telegraphed in the description of the rule, not obscured by "flavor text".Having said that, once I know what the underlying intent of a particular rule is, I'm free to ignore it at my table and adjudicate it using table rules.  If my players and I want the grease spell to conjure up a flammable oily substance, we're gonna do it.  If we want darkvision to work in a particular way that differs from the "RAW", we're gonna do that too.  But knowing the intent of the designers in creating the particular rules piece helps me watch out for potential game-breaking situations when I change those rules - I want to walk into something with my eyes open for potential problems, not get blindsided by it weeks or months down the road.</blockquote>

Verification