Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JDillard" data-source="post: 4346490" data-attributes="member: 67649">Fortunately for us all this is D&amp;D where DM's make rules and rational rules calls based off of what seems reasonable, not explicitly what the book states. Maybe the dev's took that into account?&nbsp;Obviously this particular example is flawed in some way. And nobody go saying &quot;they didn't playtest enough, because they didn't catch this&quot; because they playtested a ton and in every game or bit of software there's always a bunch of bugs that slipped through. &nbsp;But we're all intelligent people, and can make rules decisions that make sense when the book seems to conflict with that. &nbsp;Really, we do not want them to have to include a section like the Magic: the Gathering rules block in the PHB. That takes situations like this and breaks them down into the minuteia of lawyer-ese and is over 60 pages long of that kind of text, to make sure there are no loopholes. I can't think of anything that would make me (or many of my friends, or any new players) want to play the game less than feeling like I need to read 60 pages of lawyer-ese just to play the game. &nbsp;If you're really intent on saying that a Doomsayer using a wand with a fear effect spell in it gets bonuses on ALL his save spells, or that a thief with a cold dagger can use the wintertouched power that's fine. Talk to your DM, make an agreement on it, and nobody here is hurt. But if you think that's what the devs actually intended, then you're not paying attention to all the other problems that crop up from allowing that. &nbsp;A huge design goal in 4e was minimizing broken combos like that. They've been explicit about that from the beginning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JDillard, post: 4346490, member: 67649"] Fortunately for us all this is D&D where DM's make rules and rational rules calls based off of what seems reasonable, not explicitly what the book states. Maybe the dev's took that into account? Obviously this particular example is flawed in some way. And nobody go saying "they didn't playtest enough, because they didn't catch this" because they playtested a ton and in every game or bit of software there's always a bunch of bugs that slipped through. [B]But [/B]we're all intelligent people, and can make rules decisions that make sense when the book seems to conflict with that. Really, we do not want them to have to include a section like the Magic: the Gathering rules block in the PHB. That takes situations like this and breaks them down into the minuteia of lawyer-ese and is over 60 pages long of that kind of text, to make sure there are no loopholes. I can't think of anything that would make me (or many of my friends, or any new players) want to play the game less than feeling like I need to read 60 pages of lawyer-ese just to play the game. If you're really intent on saying that a Doomsayer using a wand with a fear effect spell in it gets bonuses on ALL his save spells, or that a thief with a cold dagger can use the wintertouched power that's fine. Talk to your DM, make an agreement on it, and nobody here is hurt. But if you think that's what the devs actually intended, then you're not paying attention to all the other problems that crop up from allowing that. A huge design goal in 4e was minimizing broken combos like that. They've been explicit about that from the beginning. [/QUOTE]

Verification