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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5915783" data-attributes="member: 2011">Is this another way of saying "We use all of the rules except for when we do not"? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />Either you use all of the rules (shy of specific house rules and rules that have been explicitly revised in latter versions of rules), or you don't.According to what is written, the rule is currently one way and shouldn't be ignored. If people feel strongly enough about the rule, then they should make a proposal to change it.By not following ALL of the rules, you are changing the rules for those players who do have all of the source material. From their perspective, the rule is accessible. They might question why the judges aren't following the rule or why a different player is allowed to break the rule.It could be a minor oversight. There are at least 25 source books that have rules in them and literally thousands of rules. It's easy to miss one. One cannot conclude designer intent from an omission.No, I meant what I wrote. I realize that AH doesn't apply because of the specifics of its property, but that part of my discussion was on rules philosophy not on a given rule. Does it really make sense for a weapon in the primary hand to be able to do fire damage because a weapon in the off hand is on fire. Well yes, it makes sense if the fire weapon states that it gives this ability to a different weapon, but it doesn't make much sense if it doesn't. The fire weapon should do fire damage, the weapon in the other hand should do whatever it does.The word Property when applied to an object has a meaning in English. This item has this property. If you are using this item with your attack, then the attack gains that property. Course, rules philosophy doesn't mean much in a specific rules discussion, I was just pointing out why I thought the AV rule is the way it is. Balance and consistency.Yup. Me neither. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />I just enjoy rules discussions. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification