Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9001631" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I've had argumentative players who want their interpretation of the rules which simply was different from how I understood the rule.&nbsp; It's rare and if you've never run into that person you're lucky.&nbsp; You've never had someone ask &quot;How do you handle [fill in the blank?&quot;&nbsp; Because that's incredibly common in every public game I've played.&nbsp; It's not a matter of being a jerk or uncooperative, there are just some things that are open to interpretation or intentionally left open ended. In the current game I'm playing in we discussed this kind of thing in the session 0.&nbsp; We chatted a bit, I made some suggestions and we discussed it but ultimately the DM made a decision.&nbsp; I was fine with it.&nbsp; For example, if I was deciding on what kind of fighter to run I may ask how they handle the shield master feat.&nbsp; I allow people to make the bonus action shield bash to knock enemies prone before their attack, I think the feat is effectively worthless if they have to take it after all attacks are resolved.&nbsp; I'm perfectly okay with whatever the DM decides, it may just change my PC's build.&nbsp; That is the kind of thing I see at the table when it comes to disagreements.In my example there is no right or wrong, no definitive answer unless you take Sage Advice as gospel.&nbsp; It's just a judgement call someone has to make, including the importance of Sage Advice.&nbsp; Same way with are what source books, multi-classing, feats, etc. allowed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9001631, member: 6801845"] I've had argumentative players who want their interpretation of the rules which simply was different from how I understood the rule. It's rare and if you've never run into that person you're lucky. You've [I]never[/I] had someone ask "How do you handle [fill in the blank?" Because that's incredibly common in every public game I've played. It's not a matter of being a jerk or uncooperative, there are just some things that are open to interpretation or intentionally left open ended. In the current game I'm playing in we discussed this kind of thing in the session 0. We chatted a bit, I made some suggestions and we discussed it but ultimately the DM made a decision. I was fine with it. For example, if I was deciding on what kind of fighter to run I may ask how they handle the shield master feat. I allow people to make the bonus action shield bash to knock enemies prone before their attack, I think the feat is effectively worthless if they have to take it after all attacks are resolved. I'm perfectly okay with whatever the DM decides, it may just change my PC's build. [I]That[/I] is the kind of thing I see at the table when it comes to disagreements. In my example there is no right or wrong, no definitive answer unless you take Sage Advice as gospel. It's just a judgement call someone has to make, including the importance of Sage Advice. Same way with are what source books, multi-classing, feats, etc. allowed. [/QUOTE]

Verification