Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6772546" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Yeah, I'm not buying that. At all. If you're not using a rule, then it has no applicability to the game whatsoever, and it shouldn't be taken into consideration for any reason. The feat rules in 5E have no more impact on my interpretation of anything else in 5E than the feat rules in Pathfinder do. They aren't a part of my game, at all, in any way whatsoever. That's what it means for something to not be a rule in the game.As the most basic counter-example to your mis-guided argument, look at the Object Interaction rules in regard to Drizzt, or any other dual-wielder but specifically him because he's the mascot of the entire brand. If you don't include feats in the game and if you insist on taking the existence of the feat ability as precedence, then there's no way for him to draw both Icingdeath and Twinkle and attack with them; he'd have to choose between drawing them in the first round while doing nothing productive, or drawing one and attacking with it (probably twice) before subsequently drawing and attacking with the other one on the next round.And that's just ridiculous. There's no way that this story, of which he's the star - which new players will hope to emulate - would do such a thing.The fundamental basis of this edition is that the DM (with possible contribution from the players) is going to fill in the gaps in the system. That's the whole point of Rulings-Not-Rules. The literal rule in the book is that, wherever something is uncertain, ask the DM and maybe it would involve a check but probably the DM just says yes or no. That is the rule. And since there is uncertainty here (because the exact situation is not addressed), the DM is interpreting and coming up with a solution in order to be fair and balanced and consistent with everything else in the game. That's not a House Rule; it's just the rule.I'm not saying that my use of Object Interaction is the one true way that it should be done, or even that it's the only way to read the rules. I'm just saying that it's one valid way to read the rules, and it's not violating the letter or the spirit of the rules in order to do so. There's enough ambiguity that an argument can be made, and that's all it takes.</blockquote>

Verification