Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3172739" data-attributes="member: 3929">Shall I challenge something that doesn't fit your viewpoint instead? Shall I poll other gamers, "This doesn't make sense to me, but I want to make sure I'm in the majority before I question it"? Whence comes your rancor?What do I insist upon? That FAQ rulings be based in the rules? Should they not be? This ruling is not based upon the rules present, but rather upon the absence of them. It makes a statement that cannot be defended by existing rules text, only by its own existance. How does this make sense?Insist upon a flavor explanation? If a ruling is not based upon the text then no amount of flavor explanation will make it grounded in the rules; it will remain fluff. This is not necessarily a bad thing except when flavor is paraded as game mechanics. I rather enjoy flavorful spell descriptions, but they are not rules, and something in the flavor descriptions won't stop a caster from completing the spell when he would otherwise be able to do so.Had the sage, or the FAQ, noted, "There are no rules for this, so it is up to the DM." and then continued with ways the DM could rule, I'd applaud. It is not a bad thing to make clear what the rules don't cover; it is one purpose of eratta to establish rules where there was no rule before; I don't think they cover Teleportation momentum, but if you can show them to me, I'll apologize for undue antagonism.</blockquote>