Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8584979" data-attributes="member: 6877472">To be fair, popularity =/= good rules.&nbsp; I'm going to just quickly glance in GW's direction and not say anything.&nbsp; D&amp;D could explain things better than it does.&nbsp; WotC could take firmer stances on the rules and STILL &quot;empower&quot; DM's to change things if they like (I mean, they've done that since the very beginning no matter what the rulebooks say).&nbsp; There are good examples of poorly written rules in D&amp;D, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.Reactions are a mess, and they were a mess in 4e as well, when they &quot;occur after the trigger&quot; but depending on the trigger, they could still interrupt things, despite the game having an action type for interrupting things.&nbsp; 5e, not unlike MtG, tossed out the term &quot;interrupt&quot;, leaving us with wonky reactions that sometimes can avoid attacks (like Shield) and sometimes cannot (like Sentinel), based on the precise trigger.The ready action doesn't give any guidance on this topic, instead using the very openly worded &quot;perceivable circumstance&quot;, which opens itself up immediately to gaming the system.Consider two players: Player One: &quot;I want to ready, and if the bad guy attacks the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with Maneuvering Strike!&quot;Player Two: &quot;I also want to ready, and if the enemy moves into melee range with the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with my Eldritch Blast and push him back.&quot;One of these two Ready actions, based on it's wording, could theoretically negate an attack.&nbsp; The other probably will not.&nbsp; Ready could completely afford to be more clear on how it is intended to be used, and not require munchkinry to be used to greater effect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8584979, member: 6877472"] To be fair, popularity =/= good rules. I'm going to just quickly glance in GW's direction and not say anything. D&D could explain things better than it does. WotC could take firmer stances on the rules and STILL "empower" DM's to change things if they like (I mean, they've done that since the very beginning no matter what the rulebooks say). There are good examples of poorly written rules in D&D, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Reactions are a mess, and they were a mess in 4e as well, when they "occur after the trigger" but depending on the trigger, they could still interrupt things, despite the game having an action type for interrupting things. 5e, not unlike MtG, tossed out the term "interrupt", leaving us with wonky reactions that sometimes can avoid attacks (like Shield) and sometimes cannot (like Sentinel), based on the precise trigger. The ready action doesn't give any guidance on this topic, instead using the very openly worded "perceivable circumstance", which opens itself up immediately to gaming the system. Consider two players: Player One: "I want to ready, and if the bad guy attacks the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with Maneuvering Strike!" Player Two: "I also want to ready, and if the enemy moves into melee range with the Wizard, I'm going to hit him with my Eldritch Blast and push him back." One of these two Ready actions, based on it's wording, could theoretically negate an attack. The other probably will not. Ready could completely afford to be more clear on how it is intended to be used, and not require munchkinry to be used to greater effect. [/QUOTE]

Verification