Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4106527" data-attributes="member: 336">Unfortunately having a laundry list of rules doesn't help there either.&nbsp; It simply causes more hesitation because now the unexperienced DM feels like if he doesn't have a rule for everything he can't adjudicate anything outside of those rules.&nbsp; Besides the add bonuses/penalties rule is part of the rules as written now and it covers an immense amount of ground, without being restrictive.Describe what and when?&nbsp; I don't stop a game in the middle of it to have a dissertation about the mechanics of why a particular monster, that the characters might or might never have met before, has a specific power and whether they can train to have the same power.&nbsp; For all intents, the players are not monsters so the simple answer is no, and the more detailed answer was succinctly put by somebody up thread (you want to train for 20 years, good I'll see your character in 4-5 campaigns)&nbsp; That gamist mentality is the reason 3e tried to have a rule for every case, and it was not very good at it.I might laugh at a player that somehow demands all the answers that his character obviously does not have.&nbsp; They want to find answers about a creatures powers, they can attempt to find them in game, not outside.Maybe cause I attempt to temper my rulings within the spirit of the rules, but I don't feel like I need to wear a rules straight jacket to accomplish that.&nbsp; In addition those rules usually permit monsters to do certain things that PC's simply can't do.&nbsp; So what is there to adjudicate unfairly?I can explain the &quot;magical unique abilities&quot; in multiple ways that prevent the players from having them.&nbsp; For example if the players in my group battled a creature with a supernatural ability, let's say a gaze attack that kills instantly on a failed save, should I let them have it simply because if I don't they are somehow less privileged than the creature?&nbsp; The simple answer is no, and I don't feel in anyway obligated to have a 30 minute or more rules argument on the validity of that ruling with the player asking to have the same power.&nbsp; If that would be considered elitist then I'll wear the shoe proudly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 4106527, member: 336"] Unfortunately having a laundry list of rules doesn't help there either. It simply causes more hesitation because now the unexperienced DM feels like if he doesn't have a rule for everything he can't adjudicate anything outside of those rules. Besides the add bonuses/penalties rule is part of the rules as written now and it covers an immense amount of ground, without being restrictive. Describe what and when? I don't stop a game in the middle of it to have a dissertation about the mechanics of why a particular monster, that the characters might or might never have met before, has a specific power and whether they can train to have the same power. For all intents, the players are not monsters so the simple answer is no, and the more detailed answer was succinctly put by somebody up thread (you want to train for 20 years, good I'll see your character in 4-5 campaigns) That gamist mentality is the reason 3e tried to have a rule for every case, and it was not very good at it. I might laugh at a player that somehow demands all the answers that his character obviously does not have. They want to find answers about a creatures powers, they can attempt to find them in game, not outside. Maybe cause I attempt to temper my rulings within the spirit of the rules, but I don't feel like I need to wear a rules straight jacket to accomplish that. In addition those rules usually permit monsters to do certain things that PC's simply can't do. So what is there to adjudicate unfairly? I can explain the "magical unique abilities" in multiple ways that prevent the players from having them. For example if the players in my group battled a creature with a supernatural ability, let's say a gaze attack that kills instantly on a failed save, should I let them have it simply because if I don't they are somehow less privileged than the creature? The simple answer is no, and I don't feel in anyway obligated to have a 30 minute or more rules argument on the validity of that ruling with the player asking to have the same power. If that would be considered elitist then I'll wear the shoe proudly. [/QUOTE]

Verification