Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9436252" data-attributes="member: 29398">Which is possible, but it's hard to know when the RAI isn't spelled out while the RAW is.I mean, let's be nice and assume they did find these odd/broken interactions ahead of time, and then intentionally chose to leave them in place.  Would it be too much to ask for a 2-sentence explanation in a sidebar telling us the rationale for that decision and-or how they envision it working in play? (this applies to every edition ever released by the way, not just the current one) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The first requires fixing, the second IMO requires explanation.For my part, this isn't so much disdain for WotC as annoyance they don't (or don't want to) learn from the past.  TSR made the same mistakes, as did earlier WotC: every edition* has had some flat-out bad rules that, if put in the hands of some determined optimizers and envelope-pushers, would have been chewed up and spat out in no time.* - I'll cut a lot of slack for OD&D(1974) here, though, as they were pioneering the whole thing and didn't have the benefit of hindsight.</blockquote>