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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6780634" data-attributes="member: 6801315">Pretty much this and besides if I really wanted to make rulings and houserules, having a clear and consistent rules base never prevented anyone from doing so.  The excuse that clear rules limits roleplaying is akin to the stormwind fallacy imo.  I can't RP because the rules are clear and well explained??  Never understood this argument.Errata exists for a reason guys.  If something is not working as intended in development, WOTC has the power to produce errata to fix those problems.  And they have done so multiple times so far with 5e, the problem is that 5e not only suffers from both errors and rule interaction problems (like every edition ever published to be fair) but ALSO from a deliberate overall design choice which makes understanding how the rules work even more complicated.  And for what?  What possible benefit could there be from confusing and making the rules difficult to understand?  I've heard people say that it's to encourage rulings, but rulings existed before 5e and will afterwards.  DM's making rulings or creating houserules is an integral part of DND outside of specific official events:  Adventure League.  Which brings me to my next point.If you create an edition with ambiguity as a core design choice to allow for rulings/houserules and then create AL where DM's are told not to create houserules and to limit their rulings to officially encouraged ones, then what the hell were you thinking?  It's in the AL rules for DM's.  You can't expect one DM's ruling to move with you to another table and even then if a DM is found to create houserules it's grounds for warnings and then losing the right to DM.  It's really silly IME. Anyway I think that we shouldn't derail the thread so I'll drop this here.</blockquote>

Verification