Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8399188" data-attributes="member: 86653">Sure, and that's absolutely my experience as well. However, there's an excluded middle that was jumped over like they were playing a game of "the floor is lava". The options are not: A) hyper-focused and precise rules for everything, or; B) vague, easily abused rules.You can write precise rules that are broadly applicable. Something as simple as "all spells of the enchantment school are considered charms" would have worked. They actually did this in the description of the enchantment school, but because it's in natural language instead of rules-speak, there's enough wiggle room for the lawyers. So here we are. Having an argument about how a clearly mind-altering spell isn't actually a mind-altering spell because the rules aren't written precisely enough.</blockquote>