Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9391509" data-attributes="member: 93670">Not going for rhetorical jabs or anything, honest question here... Do we play a different game? &nbsp;I've always found that the PHB for recent editionscontains mostif not all of the rules that provide mechanical structure to the game.&nbsp; The MM &amp; DMG might discuss or expand on those rules, but I can't remember reading througfh the last few editions &amp; seeing phrases like [spoiler=&quot;these&quot;]<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot; Although your DM has the rules for handling spell research, there are some things you should know about how&nbsp; to proceed. &quot; Ad&amp;D2e phb Pg113</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;This can mean one of two things, depending on whether the standard or the optional rule is used (this is discussed in detail in the Dungeon Master's guide. The choice is left to the DM and he must tell the players how he wants infravision to work. &quot; -- AD&amp;D2e PHB Pg155</li>
</ul>[/spoiler]
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li>
</ul>.[/spoiler]I think it's bizarre to the point of honestly wondering if we play the same game every time someone defends the lack of DM &quot;pain points&quot;&nbsp; being addressed by bringing up the idea that this is just the PHB while suggesting or implying that anyone with concerns about DM &quot;pain points&quot; should just sit tight till the dust settles &amp; the DMG rolls around. &nbsp;Heck the 2014 PHB even contained the full rules for ability checks, the DC ladder, contests, skills w/different abilities, passive checks, group checks, &amp; working together. Not sure about 4e&nbsp; but 3.5 was the last edition where I recall the PHB including a barebones version of those&nbsp; while the DMG contained a much more flexible &amp; expansive toolset built for the GM's needs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9391509, member: 93670"] Not going for rhetorical jabs or anything, honest question here... Do we play a different game? I've always found that the PHB for recent editionscontains mostif not all of the rules that provide mechanical structure to the game. The MM & DMG might discuss or expand on those rules, but I can't remember reading througfh the last few editions & seeing phrases like [spoiler="these"] [LIST] [*]"[I] Although your DM has the rules for handling spell research, there are some things you should know about how to proceed. [/I]" Ad&D2e phb Pg113 [*]"[I]This can mean one of two things, depending on whether the standard or the optional rule is used (this is discussed in detail in the Dungeon Master's guide. The choice is left to the DM and he must tell the players how he wants infravision to work. [/I]" -- AD&D2e PHB Pg155[/LIST][/spoiler][LIST] [/LIST] . [/spoiler] I think it's bizarre to the point of honestly wondering if we play the same game every time someone defends the lack of DM "pain points" being addressed by bringing up the idea that this is just the PHB while suggesting or implying that anyone with concerns about DM "pain points" should just sit tight till the dust settles & the DMG rolls around. Heck the 2014 PHB even contained the full rules for ability checks, the DC ladder, contests, skills w/different abilities, passive checks, group checks, & working together. Not sure about 4e but 3.5 was the last edition where I recall the PHB including a barebones version of those while the DMG contained a much more flexible & expansive toolset built for the GM's needs. [/QUOTE]

Verification