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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8176675" data-attributes="member: 6855114">I run two groups of 6 players. We play democratily with every single optional rule voted upon. So nope, I don't hide nothing. QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]Because otherwise you're hiding it.  A player may know the actual official rule from their own books or from another table, and if you are playing with non-official rules and don't let them know, it's hiding it.</blockquote>Errata is not official. The print is. Afterall, a hand attack is a weapon attack but not for the paladin. So no punchinator, but SA do say that it is a weapon attack... so... SA and Errata are not common ground. Maybe it is time for 5.5 just like 3.5 came about. Until then, my version of the DMG is prime. And since every players that do DM in their own game have the same DMG as I... QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]You don't have to pay for a new one, they have handy errata documents.[/QUOTE]Again, errata is not official. A print for 5.5 would be. Otherwise, screw the errata. An errata should not change a rule but add something that was omited. Adding a sentence that was left out. Adding a page number where it is reference but was not printed. The PoTA errata is a prime example of what an errata should be.QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]And if you don't like it, house rule it.  Already said I'm for it.  Second guessing that it didn't need to be changed isn't contributing to anything since obviously the people who decided what rules are official disagree.[/QUOTE]Again, rules were voted upon by the players. So nope, I don't feel that the scroll errata was particularly judicious. It was an oversight that scrolls with reactions and bonus actions could not be used with the standard rule, but their "clarification" just put more potential abuses than it solves. That is my opinion (and consequently, seems to be my players' too as they voted against the errata when we saw it.) and so far, it works out perfectly. Yes it implies that reaction scrolls are bit risky to use (as you have to have them in your hands) but it works out for us.QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]And your examples assume that players have infinite reactions and infinite scrolls of reaction spells in order to be able to "Rinse and repeat for every possible caster".  It also assumes every lich and caster out there is ignorant of basic ways to get around counterspell.  Be more than 60' away, mode to hidden, ready to release when you see your opponent (which casts) then move back into view, be the second spell cast - either legendary actions or have allies, etc.[/QUOTE]Do not assume I do not know how to play my badasses. I probably know the rules as good as you do. I simply do not play superheroes in fantasy environment.QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]Citation needed.  Obviously the easiest for the designers would have been no change, so there was an impetious to change it. That it was broken in it's original form according to them.  Your claims that it was not thought out and definitely not playtested is throwing share without any proof.  And since it's an official rule that most tables have in play and we DON'T hear about "powergamers destroying campaigns" with it, we can assume that you are just making up unsupport facts again like the rest of this paragraph.[/QUOTE]Can't you recognize a personal opinion when you see one? I do not need to prove anything as I feel that this is what happened again as with many rule erratas and SA... I do not consider these two to be valid debating point if a rule is good or not.Edit: How we interpreted the original rule is that you use the scroll on your turn. Even reaction. So you can cast a shield spell premptively but you need to be the target of a spell during your turn to use counterspell. If it is on an opponent turn, you have to rely on your spell slots.[/QUOTE]

Verification