NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 7896790" data-attributes="member: 72555">I only know intent from things they did not write in the document.  But rather, what they (well, some of them) wrote elsewhere.I dislike having to replace the words they say with words they did not say for their writing to make mean what they intended to say.  This adds to cognative load.  It also adds to the load for players: "Yes, it says natural weapon, but you cannot use that weapon targetting effect on it, because the writers meant something else, not what they wrote.  Here is some documentation showing what they did mean.  Here is a better word they should have used."That is, honestly, naughty word.A player who went and picked up the ability to cast magic weapon or whatever on unarmed strikes or natural weapons, then I as a DM says "no, the words are not what they meant, they meant this convoluted nonsense, so what you want to do doesn't work."naughty word that noise.So we take the words as written and interpret them in the obvious way, and examine if it causes a problem.  It it doesn't cause a problem, naughty word their intent.  Following their intent makes the game worse.If it did cause a problem, then the cost of "words don't mean what they read like" could be valid, and designer intent is a good guide there.  Or even if the words where ambiguous.But this nonsense of melee weapon attacks vs attack with a melee weapon that doesn't even have significant balance impact is stupid.  They intended A, they wrote B, they tweeted "we intended A" despite B not causing balance problems, just means they screwed up twice.</blockquote>

Verification