Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6394770" data-attributes="member: 2525">Part of that is because the complaint itself isn't a question.  "The 5E stealth rules are unclear and ambiguous" is not a question, so why are you complaining that the response doesn't answer it? Why do I need to provide a reason why the rules are unclear and ambiguous, unless you're willing to explain why it would be a bad thing if they are.  Ambiguity in rules is not an inherently bad thing.  There are entire game systems that are intentionally ambiguous to serve as a toolset for a very broad set of adjudications rather than a set of dictates.These are separate issues and you keep conflating them.  Ambiguity is often intentional, and I gave you an example from Mearls where he explains the stealth rules are intentionally written that way.  Bad writing, on the other hand, often doesn't need anything to "fix" it.  As long as you understand the intent, you don't need a "fix".  For instance, I have lots of grammatical errors in my responses to you, but my bad writing doesn't need a fix to communicate my intent to you, right? On the other hand, there is some bad writing that just doesn't function to communicate any intent.  But I don't see the Fallacy responses typically about those types.First that's just wrong.  Lots and lots of rules simply are not open to interpretation, and I think you will find that's not a response to a great many rules.  It's a good answer when dealing with a rule which is open for interpretation, like the stealth rule.  But take for instance the Grappler feat in 5e.  The third part of it says, "Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple." But, that's referencing an old rule from the playtest which doesn't exist in the game at all anymore.  It's an error (or, as you put it, a poorly written rule).  It's not ambiguous, it's just erroneous.  I don't see anyone saying, "you're wrong for complaining about that rule because DM interpretation can fix it".  There is no "interpretation" there to fix it, it's just a whoops.  We know what their intent was  - it was to carry over a rule from the playtest while they forgot that rule had been changed.  There are lots of obvious house rules to address it (like saying you can grapple bigger creatures) but I have not seen those responses combined with "which makes it not broken because I can house rule it to function".  Second, speeding up play and reducing rules-lawyering are not the only reasons rules are intentionally written in an ambiguous fashion.  For instance, the stealth rule was left ambiguous so that it can apply to the maximum number of circumstances with a flexible set of principals and guidelines rather than a rigid set of dictates.  It gives you some principals that you as a DM can use as tools to work out stealth issues that arise.  If someone "complains" that the rule is vague and ambiguous, your answer is "yes, it's one of those rules intentionally left to DM interpretation". I don't see why any further answer is needed - there is no argumentative fallacy in that response.So you're saying it was not intended to be left to interpretation, like the stealth rule.  OK.  So who is saying "I can interpret it therefore it's not broken"? In my experience, that response is reserved for rules where it's intended to be up to the DM, like the stealth rule, which you complained about earlier.</blockquote>

Verification