Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7553857" data-attributes="member: 6779196">The same thing happened with the elf’s Trance feature. When he initially answered, he said quite explicitly that the intent was for Trance not to change the duration of a long rest, only the amount of it that need be spent sleeping, and was also courteous enough to spend a few words discussing the possible implications of if you do allow it to change the duration of a long rest. It was quite useful, I, as someone who interpreted that rule differently than what he said was the intent, was made aware of what the intent was, and what effects my interpretation had on the game, and could make&nbsp; an informed decision about how to rule at my own table (for the record, I went with “it does change the duration.”) Then there was an errata to the rules for long rests, and Jeremy revised his answer. The new answer is fully consistent with the rules as written post-errata, but it is now in direct conflict with what he previously said was the intent of the rule, and he makes no mention of that.Somewhere along the line, Jeremy switched from giving helpful insight on developer intent and advice about the implications of RAW vs. RAI, to just&nbsp; spitting out direct RAW clarification. In fact, at times it seems like he is actively avoiding giving any indication of what the actual intent behind a rule he’s been asked to clarify is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7553857, member: 6779196"] The same thing happened with the elf’s Trance feature. When he initially answered, he said quite explicitly that the [i]intent[/i] was for Trance not to change the duration of a long rest, only the amount of it that need be spent sleeping, and was also courteous enough to spend a few words discussing the possible implications of if you do allow it to change the duration of a long rest. It was quite useful, I, as someone who interpreted that rule differently than what he said was the intent, was made aware of what the intent was, and what effects my interpretation had on the game, and could make an informed decision about how to rule at my own table (for the record, I went with “it does change the duration.”) Then there was an errata to the rules for long rests, and Jeremy revised his answer. The new answer is fully consistent with the rules as written post-errata, but it is now in direct conflict with what he previously said was the intent of the rule, and he makes no mention of that. Somewhere along the line, Jeremy switched from giving helpful insight on developer intent and advice about the implications of RAW vs. RAI, to just spitting out direct RAW clarification. In fact, at times it seems like he is actively avoiding giving any indication of what the actual intent behind a rule he’s been asked to clarify is. [/QUOTE]

Verification