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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest User" data-source="post: 8176807">I appreciate the response.  Wether here or on other Message Boards, your responses always seem polite, thoughtful and well composed.  This fact has not gone unnoticed by me.  Thank you for this.Since Stoutsien and the artist formerly known as dnd4vr (<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🥸" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f978.png" title="Disguised face    :disguised_face:" data-shortname=":disguised_face:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />) are in agreement, just a brief response.  Principally,  I agree, and I do think the above quotes  encapsulate the design intention.  The counter argument I see is the books never use a different verb for "Cast".Thus an argument could be made that "casting a spell" from a scroll is just natural language and is not referencing the  more technical, Cast a Spell action.  Without a design intent sidebar or other signifier or method of clarifying design intent, we are back to just each table has to make a ruling.Which, kinda sucks...I was excited, at the prospect that I had missed a crucial segment of rules.  (Cue the sad trombone sound).So I'm not entirely onboard with an entirely new edition, for much the same reason that I'm not super enthused for Morrus' Advanced 5e project, (sorry Morrus):My primary group just is not interested in learning new rules right now.This is also why 6ENow! Is stuck being a DM for a system, that doesn't really float their boat. (My apologies if this is an unintentional misrepresentation 6ENow!)"Rulings not rules" is a fine principle to start with, but it requires designers who are willing and able to provide advice and enough guidance to make informed decisions.The core 2e books...were actually pretty good at this...Stoutstein on another forum had a hilarious running commentary about unclear rules as they were reading Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  At this point, ambiguous rules is either intentional, and thus a "feature", or Crawford and Perkins are unable to write clear rules.It is all too easy to bash on Crawford...I don't aspire to be that person...but 6 years in...these types of rules questions should be "settled law"by now.</blockquote>

Verification