Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8258108" data-attributes="member: 86653">Two people in my gaming group. One somehow read that the monks extra attacks were off-hand attacks so they didn't qualify for the ability mod damage of most attacks. Kept talking about taking a feat or multiclassing into ranger to get two-weapon fighting...just to get the ability mod damage on those extra attacks. Normally a really smart person, but just bounced off that particular rule. The other was playing a cleric and for the life of him could not understand why it wasn't listed anywhere how many cantrips he could cast in a day. Again, otherwise smart person...just bounced off that rule.Yet here we are. Arguing about how easy it is to read the rules and how official JC's tweets on rules clarifications are. I'd say that's not only friction, but quite noticeable.Some players. As evidenced by this thread and all the others like it, and the existence of Sage Advice, etc.Sales and popularity do not equate to quality of the product.Right. I agree. They settled on writing a reference book as if it were a coffee table book, then are &quot;surprised&quot; that some people have trouble understanding what they wrote in their reference book. I'm not saying they didn't succeed at their design goal, I'm saying their design goal was flawed. The goal of a reference book and rulebook for a game are clarity and precision. They threw that out, and in my thinking, threw the baby out with the bathwater. Technical writing doesn't have to be hard to read or a chore. Bad technical writing is hard to read and a chore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 8258108, member: 86653"] Two people in my gaming group. One somehow read that the monks extra attacks were off-hand attacks so they didn't qualify for the ability mod damage of most attacks. Kept talking about taking a feat or multiclassing into ranger to get two-weapon fighting...just to get the ability mod damage on those extra attacks. Normally a really smart person, but just bounced off that particular rule. The other was playing a cleric and for the life of him could not understand why it wasn't listed anywhere how many cantrips he could cast in a day. Again, otherwise smart person...just bounced off that rule. Yet here we are. Arguing about how easy it is to read the rules and how official JC's tweets on rules clarifications are. I'd say that's not only friction, but quite noticeable. Some players. As evidenced by this thread and all the others like it, and the existence of Sage Advice, etc. Sales and popularity do not equate to quality of the product. Right. I agree. They settled on writing a reference book as if it were a coffee table book, then are "surprised" that some people have trouble understanding what they wrote in their reference book. I'm not saying they didn't succeed at their design goal, I'm saying their design goal was flawed. The goal of a reference book and rulebook for a game are clarity and precision. They threw that out, and in my thinking, threw the baby out with the bathwater. Technical writing doesn't have to be hard to read or a chore. Bad technical writing is hard to read and a chore. [/QUOTE]

Verification