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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4309070" data-attributes="member: 4937">All of which may be true, and yet still not provide any evidence that they are pushing Rule 0.  If they were in fact pushing rule zero, a sage advice answer to a question like that would give as its 'TRUE answer' "make something up which suits your group".  But I see no evidence that they are pushing the sort of free form circumstantial adjudication that people are claiming that they are.  Rather what I see is people uncomfortable with the move to a simplier rule set and then claiming that 4E is filling in the gaps with Rule 0.  You always can choose to exercise Rule 0, but that doesn't mean its an especially 4e way of handling things.  My impression of 4E is that you are supposed to ignore the logical gaps in favor of 'fun' or 'balance'.  I think that rule that gelatinous cubes can be knocked prone is particularly 4E-ish in its mindset because "Players may have abilities which knock targets prone and its not fun to take away abilities", and likewise the 4E mindset would view 'Rule 0' interpretations that an ooze can't be knocked prone (because it doesn't make sense based on the flavor) as being particularly wrong headed.I think the comparison to MtG is apt, because I think the proper reading of the 4E rules is similar in many ways to the proper reading of a MtG card.  I think the 4E rules have been heavily influenced by what WotC has learned writing WtG cards.  From the 4E perspective, the claim that an ooze can't be knocked prone because it has neither legs or nor an upright orientation is akin to claiming in MtG that a monster can fly because it has wings.   No, creature cards can fly because they have 'flying' written on them - wings are irrelevant.  Oozes can be knocked prone because the rules don't explicitly say otherwise - flavor text is irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification