Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8150188" data-attributes="member: 93670">I don't agree at all and think that trying to make that claim involves conflating the two.&nbsp; Everything in 5e is a one off rule with little structural framework linking it.&nbsp; Someone else mentioned needing to check a rulebook in an old edition like 3.5 if being on higher ground meant +2 or not, the ruing is &quot;yes or no&quot; and the +2&nbsp; is because there is a framework saying that a circumstance/situation/whatever bonus is +2 while a penalty is -2.&nbsp; 5e lacks that so the answer is a rule once you include the fact that the gm needs to makeup a system for how it benefits/hinders someone.&nbsp; A ruling is &quot;yes being on higher/lower ground helps/hinders someone in this situation&quot; a rule is what it does to help.&nbsp; in the past the PC would have a good idea of how much it would help/hinder if at all and so did the player.... both PC &amp; player could confidentially estimate the benefits of that high ground because there was a rules structure for them to estimate against.You only need to look at ome f the optional dmg rules that fail at the goal thy need to meet or all of the discussion about different races being all over the map in the number kinds &amp; value of things given by races after tasha's came out to shine a spotlight on how completely lacking in structure they were as evidence to how badly that lack of structural framwork hinders a gm from making changes to 5e when wotc can't even do it without exposing just how haphazzard the whole mess is...Others are talking about how 5e is great at letting the gm build the kind of setting they want &amp; that is where 5e shines... but that's a flawed argument as well because wotc used the core rulebooks as a standin for the 5e version of &quot;forgotten realms campaign setting&quot; to the virtual exclusion of all other settings unless those settings happen to be basically the same as FR in some area.&nbsp; The GM's freedom here is much like Henry Ford's &quot;you can have any color you want as long as it's black&quot;.&nbsp; Sure &quot;you can make any setting you want... as long as it looks &amp; acts like FR&quot; might be applicable, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for 5e being a system that shines at letting the gm make the setting they want.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8150188, member: 93670"] I don't agree at all and think that trying to make that claim involves conflating the two. Everything in 5e is a one off rule with little structural framework linking it. Someone else mentioned needing to check a rulebook in an old edition like 3.5 if being on higher ground meant +2 or not, the ruing is "yes or no" and the +2 is because there is a framework saying that a circumstance/situation/whatever bonus is +2 while a penalty is -2. 5e lacks that so the answer is a [I]rule[/I] once you include the fact that the gm needs to makeup a system for how it benefits/hinders someone. A ruling is "yes being on higher/lower ground helps/hinders someone in this situation" a rule is what it does to help. in the past the PC would have a good idea of how much it would help/hinder if at all [I]and[/I] so did the player.... both PC & player could confidentially estimate the benefits of that high ground because there was a rules structure for them to estimate against. You only need to look at ome f the optional dmg rules that fail at the goal thy need to meet or all of the discussion about different races being all over the map in the number kinds & value of things given by races after tasha's came out to shine a spotlight on how completely lacking in structure they were as evidence to how badly that lack of structural framwork hinders a gm from making changes to 5e when wotc can't even do it without exposing just how haphazzard the whole mess is... Others are talking about how 5e is great at letting the gm build the kind of setting they want & that is where 5e shines... but that's a flawed argument as well because wotc used the core rulebooks as a standin for the 5e version of "forgotten realms campaign setting" to the virtual exclusion of all other settings unless those settings happen to be basically the same as FR in some area. The GM's freedom here is much like Henry Ford's "you can have any color you want as long as it's black". Sure "you can make any setting you want... as long as it looks & acts like FR" might be applicable, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for 5e being a system that shines at letting the gm make the setting they want. [/QUOTE]

Verification