Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7956134" data-attributes="member: 93670">The problem with this is that there are too many instances of the language being written to encourage the expectation of munchkinism so right out of the gate the GM is setup for an uphill argument.&nbsp; There's very little 3.5 style &quot;If I combine X with Y then technically it looks like I can do Z&quot;, so players come armed with &quot;well it says...<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> [spoiler='I regain [I]all[/I] expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.&quot; not just warlock slots so I should get my 18sorc slots back too'] 
[ATTACH=full]120419[/ATTACH][/spoiler]</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">[spoiler=&quot;all other creatures and objects are barred from passing plus spells an -other- effects&quot;][ATTACH=full]120420[/ATTACH] 
 
[/spoiler]</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">[spoiler=&quot;It includes worn objects, his ring necklace or glasses count just as good as armor and it doesn't say I need to stay within 60 feet.&nbsp; cool that it lets me use my action to dash and BA to destroy with impunity eh?&quot;] 
[ATTACH=full]120421[/ATTACH] 
[ATTACH=full]120422[/ATTACH] 
[*][spoiler=&quot;It says when I hit and I roll fup to four times so have up to 40 foot knockback cantrip on my 18 sorc/2 warlock&quot;] 
[ATTACH=full]120423[/ATTACH] 
[ATTACH=full]120424[/ATTACH][/spoiler] 
 
There are just too many instances where they write to the most absurdly permissive munchkinism to excuse it as just an artifact of natural wording when looking at things like the long rest rules 
[ATTACH=full]120425[/ATTACH] 
[*]They pegged it to something everyone does (or tries to do) most every night &amp; right out of the gate setup the gm for an uphill battle.&nbsp; Nobody wakes up in the middle of the night to spend an hour of walking around&nbsp; before going back to bed and waking up saying &quot;I slept great!&quot;.&nbsp; The &quot;—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—&quot; clause is completely unnecessary for suggestive &quot;maybe the GM will allow....&quot; interpretation &amp; actively makes it more difficult for the gm to interpret &quot;strenuous activity&quot;.&nbsp; That &quot;maybe the GM will allow...&quot; line of reasoning is given extra strikes that do nothing but set the gm up for a fight to come&nbsp; knocking because wotc constantly rules in favor of munchkin interpretations like [USER=6987520]@dnd4vr[/USER] so clearly pointed out in his post <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/is-5e-easy-mode.671147/post-7956129" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp; Punpun was an example of accidental unintended munhkinism, 5e dives too far into what appwars to be deliberate &amp; intentional munchkinism too often for benefit if the doubt. 
[/spoiler]</li>
</ul>[spoiler=&quot;It includes worn objects, his ring necklace or glasses count just as good as armor and it doesn't say I need to stay within 60 feet.&nbsp; cool that it lets me use my action to dash and BA to destroy with impunity eh?&quot;][/spoiler]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7956134, member: 93670"] The problem with this is that there are too many instances of the language being written to encourage the expectation of munchkinism so right out of the gate the GM is setup for an uphill argument. There's very little 3.5 style "If I combine X with Y then technically it [I]looks[/I] like I can do Z", so players come armed with "well it says... [LIST] [*] [spoiler='I regain [I]all[/I] expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest." not just warlock slots so I should get my 18sorc slots back too'] [ATTACH type="full"]120419[/ATTACH][/spoiler] [*][spoiler="all other creatures and objects are barred from passing plus spells an -other- effects"][ATTACH type="full"]120420[/ATTACH] [/spoiler] [*][spoiler="It includes worn objects, his ring necklace or glasses count just as good as armor and it doesn't say I need to stay within 60 feet. cool that it lets me use my action to dash and BA to destroy with impunity eh?"] [ATTACH type="full"]120421[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]120422[/ATTACH] [*][spoiler="It says when I hit and I roll fup to four times so have up to 40 foot knockback cantrip on my 18 sorc/2 warlock"] [ATTACH type="full"]120423[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]120424[/ATTACH][/spoiler] There are just too many instances where they write to the most absurdly permissive munchkinism to excuse it as just an artifact of natural wording when looking at things like the long rest rules [ATTACH type="full"]120425[/ATTACH] [*]They pegged it to something everyone does (or tries to do) most every night & right out of the gate setup the gm for an uphill battle. Nobody wakes up in the middle of the night to spend an hour of walking around before going back to bed and waking up saying "I slept great!". The [I]"—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—"[/I] clause is completely unnecessary for suggestive "maybe the GM will allow...." interpretation & actively makes it more difficult for the gm to interpret "strenuous activity". That "maybe the GM will allow..." line of reasoning is given extra strikes that do nothing but set the gm up for a fight to come knocking because wotc constantly rules in favor of munchkin interpretations like [USER=6987520]@dnd4vr[/USER] so clearly pointed out in his post [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/is-5e-easy-mode.671147/post-7956129']here[/URL]. Punpun was an example of accidental unintended munhkinism, 5e dives too far into what appwars to be deliberate & intentional munchkinism too often for benefit if the doubt. [/spoiler][/LIST][spoiler="It includes worn objects, his ring necklace or glasses count just as good as armor and it doesn't say I need to stay within 60 feet. cool that it lets me use my action to dash and BA to destroy with impunity eh?"][/spoiler] [/QUOTE]

Verification