Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6740228" data-attributes="member: 23751">I agree with what you say about intent.&nbsp; In my game I won't be having disintegrate killing wild shaped druids.&nbsp; Not that it would ever be an issue.&nbsp; Disintegrate is rare, druids are not in every game, and there are very often better targets, so it's very unlikely that a wild shaped druid would ever be targeted.As for clarity in rules, I like them to a degree, but they do stifle choice.&nbsp; With rules that have wiggle room, you can have 5 different interpretations and 1 of those will be likely be good for any given table.&nbsp; They can decide which for themselves.&nbsp; If you have no wiggle room, you're stuck with rules that are bad for the table unless you house rule, which is far more likely to cause animosity.&nbsp; Many people resist change.&nbsp; A vague rule being interpreted is more likely to be accepted.&nbsp; There are also many DMs who dislike changing RAW, so specific is worse than vague there as well.&nbsp; That's not to say that rules should be extremely vague, but just worded so that there is room for different views.&nbsp; 5e is good like that.&nbsp; The discussions here, heated or not, are not typical of those that happen at tables.&nbsp; At tables, it's usually either not even a discussion, or over in a minute or two.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6740228, member: 23751"] I agree with what you say about intent. In my game I won't be having disintegrate killing wild shaped druids. Not that it would ever be an issue. Disintegrate is rare, druids are not in every game, and there are very often better targets, so it's very unlikely that a wild shaped druid would ever be targeted. As for clarity in rules, I like them to a degree, but they do stifle choice. With rules that have wiggle room, you can have 5 different interpretations and 1 of those will be likely be good for any given table. They can decide which for themselves. If you have no wiggle room, you're stuck with rules that are bad for the table unless you house rule, which is far more likely to cause animosity. Many people resist change. A vague rule being interpreted is more likely to be accepted. There are also many DMs who dislike changing RAW, so specific is worse than vague there as well. That's not to say that rules should be extremely vague, but just worded so that there is room for different views. 5e is good like that. The discussions here, heated or not, are not typical of those that happen at tables. At tables, it's usually either not even a discussion, or over in a minute or two. [/QUOTE]

Verification