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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7092128" data-attributes="member: 996">Wouldn't be so bad - there are lots of mechanics in 5e that just work without explicitly calling for the DM to make a ruling the way checks do - attacks are usually treated that way, for instance, and spells, of course.  But, mainly, it's "Rulings, not Rules," and the DM can decide an attack just misses or just hits, or a feat or spell does or doesn't do what it says in a given instance. Only if you consider 'rulings over rules' to be a general rule. (which wouldn't make a lot of sense, would, it?  I mean, it's rulings /over/ rules, not a rule that governs ruling on other rules......more of a slogan, really.) Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and D&D already has hobgoblins.  Legions of them.  (I'm not sure how that applies, but it sounded cute before I typed it.) That's a problem with skills, themselves, too.  The more skills, the more things you can be un-skilled at.  But, even in 4e, the existence of skill utilities didn't mean you couldn't do stuff without e'm - there were even actual, workable guidelines for adjudicating improvised actions - rather, they meant you could do something more specific, more dependably or easily, by expending a resource.  Heck, it's a problem with classes, for that matter, one class gets to do something, it needs to be 'niche protected,' it can get silly - something 5e has gone pretty far in avoiding, IMHO.Ultimately, 5e Empowers the DM to judge what a given PC can do in a given circumstance, feats or the lack thereof notwithstanding.</blockquote>

Verification