Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7491769" data-attributes="member: 16814">You say the rules aren't clear because you play it your way.  There's room for uncertainty, and that means another DM could make a ruling that a roll is necessary.  No house rule is needed.Previous editions are not controlling of this one.  Referring to them solely in the context you have is an appeal to that authority -- misplaced as it is.  Your strawman of the longsword isn't indicative of anything -- yes, you could rule that, but longswords do a d8 in 5e (unless wielded two handed, of course).  That doesn't aid that you're relying on how previous authority did it to say that current authority does it the same way -- absent that specific rule, though.  It's an appeal to authority, Max.Um, gargoyle INT and CHA are both -2.  What is incorrect?  And, the point is that the rules and intent of gargoyles is not being ignored when the DM uses the basic play paradigm of the system: yes, no, maybe; if maybe, roll.  A reasonable DM could look at that ability and say that it's uncertain if the gargoyle remains motionless.  This isn't a houserule, nor does it ignore rules as it relies on the core paradigm of the entire rule framework.Please cite the rule, Max.  You can't, because it doesn't exist, which means you're relying on your preferences to set a 'standard' and saying others not following that standard are not following the rules.  No, you can make a commoner stat block however you want -- you, as DM, are empowered to create NPCs for your game.  But, that doesn't mean that 3d6 is the core assumption for commoners, and another DM choosing a different distribution is using exactly the same authority you are.  They're just not telling others that they are wrong for doing so.The timing of your intent doesn't change the appeal to authority, Max.I've got a great handle on it, I don't need to review it.  When you claim another source is the guiding principle on a questionable issue, and further do so without engaging why the current issue is questionable, that's an appeal to authority.  Make your case without referring to prior editions -- then we'll see if you have an argument that isn't an appeal to authority.  Just use the 5e rules and the trait and tell me that it's unreasonable to determine that the gargoyle remaining motionless might be uncertain and need a roll.  Don't tell me what a previous edition did, make this case.</blockquote>

Verification