Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4859736" data-attributes="member: 3820">Maaaybe? The trouble with the word &quot;push&quot; here is that if you take it too literally, you're not fully understanding the RAW. This is true of many game terms. Consider denying someone the ability to base his Will defense off Charisma, arguing that &quot;charisma&quot; does not imply &quot;willpower.&quot; You can argue that from a literal standpoint, sure; consider charismatic celebrities who can't help cheating on their spouses. But that decision just out-and-out shafts sorcerers, bards, and all the other classes whose best attribute is Charisma yet who have no need for Wisdom. Basing Fort, Ref and Will on the best of two attributes in each pair lets players get more of the characters they want without losing any rules advantages. Now, you can still make rulings like this, no question. (Hopefully you will give a player some advantage to his pushing power not given in the rules in return for taking one of the cool things he can do away from him, yes?) But it's never ever a bad thing to reexamine a tendency to be over-literal. You wouldn't want someone saying that your wizard can't get above a 10 AC because &quot;Armor Class means armor&quot;, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 4859736, member: 3820"] Maaaybe? The trouble with the word "push" here is that if you take it too literally, you're not fully understanding the RAW. This is true of many game terms. Consider denying someone the ability to base his Will defense off Charisma, arguing that "charisma" does not imply "willpower." You can argue that from a literal standpoint, sure; consider charismatic celebrities who can't help cheating on their spouses. But that decision just out-and-out shafts sorcerers, bards, and all the other classes whose best attribute is Charisma yet who have no need for Wisdom. Basing Fort, Ref and Will on the best of two attributes in each pair lets players get more of the characters they want without losing any rules advantages. Now, you can still make rulings like this, no question. (Hopefully you will give a player some advantage to his pushing power not given in the rules in return for taking one of the cool things he can do away from him, yes?) But it's never ever a bad thing to reexamine a tendency to be over-literal. You wouldn't want someone saying that your wizard can't get above a 10 AC because "Armor Class means [I]armor[/I]", right? [/QUOTE]

Verification