Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9440754" data-attributes="member: 55680">No, it's up to the DM.Good point. 2030 seems impossible with how much work it'd require to do a rebooted D&D Beyond. Just don't think 5.5e will get a full ten years.I think Gygax screwed up his wording a bit here, "suicide" is always a noun AFAIK, not something that can be a noun.Exactly. Flavor always and forever trumps mechanics. Flavor says what the spell does and the echanics is an attempt to translate that flavor into game terms. If there's a case where the spell is being used in a way so that the flavor and mechanics no long match you bend the mechanics to fit the flavor (as in "no, I don't care what the rules say, you can't knock a cube prone"). At least that's how I run things, other people running things in different ways is great if it works for them.Exactly. "Rulings not rules" was an important part of 5e design. 5.5e is rolling that back. I thought that the changes to 5.5e Command were the clearest example of that. Hence this thread.Yes, exactly. That's why a compromise (like 5e) was a good idea and trying to go against the things that a big chunk of your customer base (who, as you say, is stubborn and doesn't like being told what to do) is not a good idea.D&D is way too diverse in playstyles to ever get everyone on the same page. Any attempt to do so is going to create a lot of backlash. The same thing would happen if WotC lost their minds and put out "D&D Just the Way Daztur Likes It" as a canonical 6e, there'd be a firestorm of blacklash and it would be a financial disaster for them.Whose intent? The 5.5e version is very obviously not the intent of the person who first wrote up the Command spell? Mike Mearl's intent? Well he's not around anymore and I don't really trust the new batch of designers to do a better job of giving us Mike Mearl's intent than Mike Mearls did himself. The intent of the new batch of designers? Why should I care about what they intend? Either a rule is good or it's bad, I don't really care about the intent behind it, I care about the rules I have in the book.It depends a bit on how things are set up. If the flavor of the rules is set up clearly then the DM has a good basis to make rulings on when things go unexpectedly. If the flavor of the rule is a tacked on bit of vagueness then the DM is being thrown off the deep end when it comes to the PCs being thrust into unexpected situations or use their powers in unexpected ways...unless the DM just says "no" and shuts down the PCs doing any kind of MacGyvering and never takes unexpected situations into account. But to me, that's like saying that you'll have less car accidents if you remove the engine of a car. That's true but it also defeats the whole purpose of having a car.For me, THE ENTIRE AND ONLY REASON I prefer RPGs to other games is that they have a GM who's constantly making rulings. If you remove rulings then I just don't see the point of playing an RPG instead of some other kind of game. What other unique things do RPGs bring to the table that no other kind of game can do?</blockquote>

Verification