Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7160185" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Yep, it's a draft.&nbsp; In addition, there will always be edge cases (e.g. casting spells while polymorphed).I understand what he's trying to do (I think), I just disagree with the approach.My preference would beRepeat the rules in a consolidated manner so that you can read everything you need to know at a glance.
Add exceptions to the general rule.So while I disagree with the weapon + shield only (and only for divine), I would have something like summary 
An exception to the rule is that if you are a divine caster using a weapon and a shield, you do not need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components.That way if I have a decent understanding of the rules as listed elsewhere, I just glance through the summary and pay attention to the exception.I also have a lot of sympathy for the people trying to write these rules.&nbsp; Writing this kind of stuff is really tough.&nbsp; There was an interview with Mr Hanselman a while back talking about the stealth rules and how much difficulty they had coming up with them. At one point he had a long detailed explanation of how they worked but they decided to throw them all out.&nbsp; It was a conscious decision on their part to leave the rules open for DMs to implement what worked best for their group.I don't have a problem with the stealth rules as written, but I'm sure a lot of people would have preferred the detailed draft.&nbsp; &nbsp; If I wanted more of that crunchy detail spelled out for me, I'd probably be playing PathFinder.I understand why they were trying to avoid duplicating the rules in the book (as I do with my summary) because of the tiny issues that could creep in.&nbsp; They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7160185, member: 6801845"] Yep, it's a draft. In addition, there will always be edge cases (e.g. casting spells while polymorphed). I understand what he's trying to do (I think), I just disagree with the approach. My preference would be [INDENT][I]Repeat the rules in a consolidated manner so that you can read everything you need to know at a glance.[/I] [I]Add exceptions to the general rule.[/I][/INDENT] So while I disagree with the weapon + shield only (and only for divine), I would have something like [INDENT][I]summary [/I] [I]An exception to the rule is that if you are a divine caster using a weapon and a shield, you do not need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components.[/I][/INDENT] That way if I have a decent understanding of the rules as listed elsewhere, I just glance through the summary and pay attention to the exception. I also have a lot of sympathy for the people trying to write these rules. Writing this kind of stuff is really tough. There was an interview with Mr Hanselman a while back talking about the stealth rules and how much difficulty they had coming up with them. At one point he had a long detailed explanation of how they worked but they decided to throw them all out. It was a conscious decision on their part to leave the rules open for DMs to implement what worked best for their group. I don't have a problem with the stealth rules as written, but I'm sure a lot of people would have preferred the detailed draft. If I wanted more of that crunchy detail spelled out for me, I'd probably be playing PathFinder. I understand why they were trying to avoid duplicating the rules in the book (as I do with my summary) because of the tiny issues that could creep in. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. [/QUOTE]

Verification