Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6393359" data-attributes="member: 14506">Hmm, I hear your point here but I think you misinterpreted my point with the interpretation of the feat being in contest. D&D is traditionally a game with many moving parts and many areas of potential conflict. This is a feature of the game in most situations. Every spell does not work in the same way even with similar effects. It is organic, complex and messy. 4e tried to change that and there was a backlash. I play many rpgs and only D&D has the types of rules discussions that can get people heated (I dont know why that is). Passionate about their D&D I guess. Perhaps there are a lot of "experts" in the organic, complex and messy environment who try to sort it all out in their own RAI way.When you select a feat the player has to be able to read it and determine if it will be useful from the language on the page. Will a dagger thrower gain a benefit from using this feat or not?POWER THROWYou have learned how to hurl weapons to deadly effect.Prerequisite: Brutal Throw (CAd) , Power Attack (PH) , STR 13,Benefit: On your turn, before making any attack rolls, you can choose to subtract a number from all thrown weapon attack rolls and add the same number to all thrown weapon damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attack rolls and the bonus on damage rolls applies until your next turn.Special: A fighter may select Power Throw as one of his fighter bonus feats.When the player reads this they think ok I can use a dagger with it. When the DM reads it they think ok its a spin off of Power Attack: no light weapons should also apply to this feat as well. Your point is DM interpretation should be final and move on. I agree. My point though was that this can blindside someone. RAI should be clear. You have a distinct advantage of playing 1e in this area, even though it is not the clearest rules set you have had the time to work out all your unspoken house rules and are allowed to alter the game even in fundamental ways without anyone batting an eyelash because the interpretations have been done long ago and they are now second nature. With 3e, there were so many moving parts to the game (all the splats) it was nearly impossible to have ruled on every situations or even approached doing so. So the only thing you could do is go by the RAW for your initial interpretation. I am for 5e having no splats or only a handful of them like 1e. So that RAI can become a very concise things for groups where individual groups can have played it for long enough where they can have an opinion on various aspects of the game.</blockquote>

Verification