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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 8387109" data-attributes="member: 42856">That it worked for you isn't proof that it works universally and doesn't remove the proof that discussions are still happening on these boards, despite the purported qualities of "natural language". Unless you consider most contributors to these threads on many forums to all be insatiatable powergamers who purposefully refuse the properties of the writing. Actually this might be the source of the disconnect: you seem to think anything is related to powergaming even when there is really no hint of it or even when you are clearly told that it isn't the case, for example in the frostball case.My point:The position you held yesterday :It's basically because you argued that rules can be changed at a whim's notice by the DM that I included the provision that you can't rely on a former ruling, according to your statement about designer's intent. If rulings can "be changed at a whi'ms notice by the DM", there is a risk that today's horse isn't exactly the same as yesterday's horse. Generally, I'd have said " a DM must be consistent" but I wouldn't have been able to provide a quote of the rules with page number. So I accept your position that it can be inconsistent... so asking is needed.Yet:AndI am pretty unable to get what is your position in this debate. Are you in favor of consistent ruling (so they become, in effect, supplemental rules) or are you in favor of malleable ruling (so the players can't rely with certainty on former experience and is better of asking in case ruling changed for some reason, good or bad). My position is that rulings are just a collection of house rules to fill the gap left by the natural language, so they must be consistent, but that didn't seem to fly with you yesterday.Not that i know of. My point was clearly stated it was rulings pertaining to the character's capabilities. Which covers what is on his character sheet and what to expect when jumping on a horse or hanging from a chandelier.Then please contribute to the many threads about, say, the Suggestion spell. They will clearly be helped by your way of resolving things, because after, what, 15 years, many contributors on this board still think it's unclear what that spell actually does (ranging from being Improved Dominate Person to being... exactly similar to a Persuasion check). Or on the Alert feat, given that many DM are giving ruling on what being surprised is and works. That your table doesn't have a problem with the way rules are written in 5e doesn't mean noone has or that they are all powergamers trying to abuse the system.And where I'd like a rule to determine what the Suggestion spell actually does, I am left with "provide a ruling to your table". Which means it's the GM work to find a suitable and balanced solution, instead of relying on the book I bought to give me this information.With regards to using standard array and banning rolling :My table has. It was standard array for all during two campaigns. One even had "mandatory pregens" at first.</blockquote>

Verification