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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="alanpossible" data-source="post: 4388248" data-attributes="member: 67772">I don't know. I've never misinterpreted the lay-on-hands rule, so it seems clear to me that what one person thinks is obvious is problematic for other players.But there are two competing issues here:1) Misinterpretation. The rules say too much. You have to read through verbose phrasing to understand exactly what is meant, and it trips up the reader ("you don't have to not consider avoiding losing your cover unless you don't have to prevent the loss of non-existent invisibility")2) Misunderstanding, when the rules assume you know how something should be applied and the information to too sparse to understand exactly what they mean ("the monsters can see the player until the player regains stealth").You seem to be arguing that the lay-on-hands rule currently suffers from problem 1, and I'm suggesting that perhaps if you remove anything, it might fall in to problem 2. There may not be any middle ground and certainly it's subjective.Your accusation is true <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But to be fair, one of my players thought that's how healing surges worked - every time one of your healing surges vanishes (no matter how), you gain hit points. He seemed to think it was a way of tracking huge numbers of hit points.However, I was trying to raise a point. I don't feel the designers wrote anything to be purposefully obfuscated, and there's a tradeoff between writing too much and too little. I don't know whether your suggested rephrasing is sufficient or not, because I have the unfair advantage of having understood the rule before I read your version.But as I say, it's subjective. I feel the original description is both obvious and unambiguous for the simple reason that there is no reasonable alternative for how it should work <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification