Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joe Liker" data-source="post: 6385528" data-attributes="member: 6777505">I think it's a spectrum. I think we all have some rules we'd like to see clarified, but some want a lot more than others.I personally don't see any need for clarification in the cases presented in the OP, but I would, for example, like to see the barkskin spell rewritten with clearer language.A lot of these more rules-lawyery questions are cases where people are just not used to saying "yes" to the players because they have had bad experiences in editions that were viewed as more exploitable.The good news is, 5th edition is not exploitable at all! Because questions like these are left to the judgment and common sense of the DM, it's not a problem for the rules to leave a little wiggle room.It's unrealistic to expect a profoundly open-ended system like D&D to have precise rules covering every possible contingency. The designers realized the folly in even trying to do that.The DM and players just need to learn to trust each other and compromise a bit. If that relationship is so adversarial that a place of trust cannot be found, it's not going to be a fun game, anyway, so you might as well just throw in the towel and scrap the campaign.</blockquote>