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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brehobit" data-source="post: 6385315" data-attributes="member: 12032">As this is going to be something of a rant, let me start by saying I _really_ like 5e.  I've not yet had a chance to play (my group wants to stay with Pathfinder), but I like it much better than any other edition. That said, the rules-light thing is one of the best features, but it is also a real problem. There are a lot of basic situations, like casting spells with a sword and shield or while wielding a staff, that are unclear.  How temp. hit points and resistance work really should have been explicit in the rules.  Things like that.  And what we've got right now for clarifications is basically coming from Twitter.  And they don't feel thought out at all.  They often seem contrary to the text (RAW or any possible reading of RAI) and/or common sense.  The Hex one (that you can't use it between encounters) is just contrary to the text (it's got a 1 hour duration that you can bump to 24 hours!).  That's easier to move a weapon to an off-hand that has a shield and back then to release and re-grab a staff is just odd and contrary to previous editions (where a caster could cast a spell and use a staff for AoO).  In any case, it certainly isn't clear from the rules we have.I realize we live in a quickly moving world, but I'd really appreciate it if, once the DMG is done, we get a decent FAQ/errata.  I've not always agreed with 3rd and 4th edition FAQs/errata, but they clearly were carefully considered and almost always reasonable. When rules were changed, it wasn't done as a clarification, it was made errata.  I expect we will see a number of errata that change things for balance reasons (in addition to errata because things were badly written).  And I'd prefer that over clarifications that don't reflect the rules we have.</blockquote>

Verification