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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4379393" data-attributes="member: 72317">Isn't it? Everywhere I go here, I see posts essentially amounting to "It seems clear that the author's intent was ... " or "It is clear that it was designed to work in some way and not another". The 2 most prevalent examples that come to find is the issue of fighter marking and whether a paladin can "mark and run". The posters have for most part all but out-right admitted that their interpretation is nowhere supported by the current rules, yet they steadfastly stand by their own notions of how those classes ought to be played, and their tone is aggressive enough to suggest that they even expect us to abide by how they choose to run their games.Nothing wrong with that. But but is wrong is when an interpretation of the current rules is clearly not to some member's liking (even though it is clearly correct, or in the least, he cannot prove that it is wrong), and he starts throwing some sort of hissy fit about how we are supposedly power-gamers for having chosen to read the rules our way instead of theirs. To me, it just reeks of sour grapes.For example, lets use the seal of binding + demigod regeneration combination, which as written, basically lets you 1-shot most solos. Easily game-breaking, no one can deny that. You can come up with a 101 different ways of how you may want to go about fixing it (such as revising regeneration to use your con mod instead of con score), but however you go about it, it ultimately remains a houserule, and should be recognized as such, instead of stubbornly claiming that your way is canon or the way it must be run, despite the book clearly showing otherwise!To use another example, lets say I start a 3e thread inquiring if powerful build would improve my unarmed strike damage. To me, the most straightforward way of replying would be to quote tha FAQ and cite how nothing in the entry of powerful build mentions anything about improving it. However, they could go one step further and add in their own 2 cents about how there would be nothing game-breaking about it, as well as why it may make sense to allow it as a house-rule. That should be it - end of story. I have gotten the answer I require, and have enough information to make an informed choice about whether I wish to run powerful build as written or houserule otherwise. What I would not like to see are people posting something like "You are bigger. It is obvious that you should do more damage with larger fists! Anyone who disagrees must be a moron, it is as obvious as day!". I stress again that it was never the bone of contention.</blockquote>

Verification