Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Danceofmasks" data-source="post: 4322205" data-attributes="member: 70765">@abyssaldeathThat's been my point all along.Rules discussions are supposed to expand understanding, not obfuscate it .. and I'm endlessly frustrated when people say, &quot;this is how I would rule ..&quot; .. it does not help!As an exception based game, the rules are meant to be sufficiently clear as to never require interpretation.Fail!I intend to run as well as play games at cons, and when players take actions, there has to be one and only one correct expectation of how the universe functions.That's the purpose of rulings threads, and people asking for rules references, it's so we can all have a common reference point with which to play the game.If a character is brought to a con that's invested in a combo and legal by RAW and FAQ, no DM has a right to say &quot;that doesn't work.&quot;There is no rule zero in 4th edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Danceofmasks, post: 4322205, member: 70765"] @abyssaldeath That's been my point all along. Rules discussions are supposed to expand understanding, not obfuscate it .. and I'm endlessly frustrated when people say, "this is how I would rule .." .. it does not help! As an exception based game, the rules are meant to be sufficiently clear as to never require interpretation. Fail! I intend to run as well as play games at cons, and when players take actions, there has to be one and only one correct expectation of how the universe functions. That's the purpose of rulings threads, and people asking for rules references, it's so we can all have a common reference point with which to play the game. If a character is brought to a con that's invested in a combo and legal by RAW and FAQ, no DM has a right to say "that doesn't work." There is no rule zero in 4th edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification