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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9592947" data-attributes="member: 6799660">The amount of hue and cry over game rulings has never correlated with either how 'official' they became, how officious the ruler was trying to be, or what question they were answering (what they thought the rule said, what it was supposed to say, or what they thought it should be). The correct thing to do would have been to stick to the 'rulings over rules' ethos and only ever put out 'this is how I would address the situation' or 'this is what we were hoping to accomplish' type responses to rules questions. I'm on board with the notion that no exception-based ruleset of D&D's complexity can live up to modern online scrutiny* and that the 3e cult of RAW ended up being toxic, so exploring natural language and cultivating a culture of collaborative problem solving over rules lawyering is a reasonable endeavor, but then you need to practice what you preach/exemplify the behavior.*not that TSR-era rules didn't have similar issues.Technically also oD&D and B(Holmes). Tim Kask says he had to argue with the (fighter-loving) EGG in favor of making Magic Missile auto-hit to give the poor  low-level magic user something worthwhile to do*. *note: not my personal opinion. IMO, Sleep or saving your memorization slots for utility spells was almost always a better course of action.I believe the trade-off was that in the 4e damage was increased to a more reasonable-in-face-of-modern-D&D-hp-total level. Honestly, either way has its limitations -- assuming you cast the spell to drop enemies you are 'sure*' are near 0 hp, you can either have a sure-hit doing 1d4+1 against an opponent who could have 1-6 hp left, or you can do 2d4+int mod, but have to roll to hit. *but unless the DM puts little glowing numbers above their heads, you don't actually know</blockquote>

Verification