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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Siberys" data-source="post: 6398291" data-attributes="member: 30619">At that point, though, it's clearly a case of DM fiat instead of a game design bit. The discussion changes from "I can't tell how this is supposed to be resolved" to "I think this should be resolved differently."For example; several years ago, I joined a D&D 3.5 game. I built a duelist character, and a lot of 3.5's duelist-themed options revolved around AoOs, so I chose them. When I got to the table, the GM ignored AoOs - the only time I got one off, I had to ask about it, and he hemmed and hawed for a bit before allowing it. That was a poor experience, yes, but once I realized how the GM ran things I rebuilt my character and the game was otherwise very fun.The problem there was not one with AoOs, or with the character options I selected. Those would have operated just fine, with little to no ambiguity. The problem arose because I didn't know the GM would ignore a portion of the rules. The game designers can't be held responsible for that decision. Game designers can be held responsible for stuff like the cestus, though - like I said, there's a difference between leaving room for interpretation and requiring it.EDIT: To clarify, suppose the cestus had said "...you take a -2 penalty to Dex-based skill checks." That's miles clearer and doesn't have any ambiguity at all. Are you wearing a cestus and attempting a dex-based skill check? -2 penalty. Clear, simple, not loaded down with exceptions. If the GM thought that didn't make sense ("That shouldn't reduce your Ride check," or "It's hard to hold that dagger with those bulky boxing gloves, take -2 to your sneak attack roll."), they could change it, but then it's an optional houserule instead of a necessary ruling.</blockquote>

Verification