Pitiful Monk, your speed impresses me not.

[IceBear]

But you're also forgetting that a lot of us are bored at work and have nothing better to do than argue

Seriously, I have been involved in a lot of long debates on these boards but I realize that they are, at the heart of things, trival and unimportant and if they came up in a game I would make a quick judgement call based on the rules as I know them.

IceBear

 

[Uller]

Yeah. The whole reason I engage in such debates is so that I can better understand the rules (both as written and more importantly, the intent of the designers) so that when it comes up in the game, I can quickly make a ruling and move on. Debate is forbidden during our games. If you disagree with a DMs ruling, you may state your case, in a sentence or two and/or reference a page in the rule books. The DM then rules and that is how it stands for that game. After the game people are welcome to debate more in depth...

The only time in 3e that our game was delayed because the DM couldn't make a ruling was with the Psion's Inflict Pain power...as written, it just seemed way off and we didn't understand it. The DM was eventually forced to rule that the target got a save each round(which was a fair ruling, given what we were faced with). It turned out that it was toned way down and made more clear in the errata...

Anyway...I don't think the rules handicap the DM's ability to make rulings on the fly. Quite the contrary. The systematic approach they took reduces the number of times in a typical game where the DM is forced to make arbitrary rulings and instead gives him the ability to make more rational and consistant rulings without having to even crack open the books beyond looking up a monster, spell, feat or skill description.

 

[IceBear]

What Uller said

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

The assumption with 3E is that everything must have a definitive absolute answer and we're going to analyze the question until we come to that absolute answer, when the question isn't even really that important. So that the DM rather than making a quick ruling and moving on feels he has to spend hours posting and responding to posts and e-mailing the sage. It's not terrible until it brings actual gameplay to a screeching halt, which in my experience sometimes happens.

I think you've been spending too much time in the RULES forum, where the whole point to debate what the rules actually say, not what they SHOULD say, or what a DM should rule. That's always left up to the DM.

If your DMs have allowed game play to come to a halt over rules, that's not a system problem, that a DM problem. My personal philosophy on rules and game play:

1. A player should be allowed a brief protest based upon rules if the DM makes a mistake (like, for example, having a character plunge to his death at the end of fly spell instead of feather falling).
2. The protest must be biref, and the DM is free to overrule the player, and should do so especially to keep things moving.
3. A side note should be made of the rules issue for off-line discussion.

Some variation on that scheme will keep things moving and ensure that play always gets better over time, even if mistakes are made along the way.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

KD:
Number 47 may be a smart alec, but he has a good point. Where does the flavor text start and the rules end? The spell says: "speed is doubled." It also says "fleet of foot." So you are saying that it only applied to ground movement. But it ALSO says "Exp. RETREAT." Why do you make the rules apply for part of the speel write-up, but not the whole write up? If you are going to play it like that, don't you have to use ALL the spell's text and intention, and say that the speed is only doubled if you are on the ground AND retreating? Why add one stipulation because of "flavor text" and no the other?

EOL:
You need to go to house rules if you want to talk about what would make things better or make the most sense, as opposed to what the official rules are. The entire point of this forum is to discuss the official rules. Non-official rules are discussed in the house rules forum.

--Large Spikey

 

[EOL]

EOL:
You need to go to house rules if you want to talk about what would make things better or make the most sense, as opposed to what the official rules are. The entire point of this forum is to discuss the official rules. Non-official rules are discussed in the house rules forum.

I realize this is a gross depature from the original topic of the thread, so this will be my last appeal before they lock me up in the non-lucid forum, because apparently no matter how many different ways I try to explain myself I'm just shouting in the wind.

This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. In the first place don't you think the official rules should be the ruling that makes the most sense?

In the second place you all seem to be waiting for the "official ruling" (which has yet to make it's presence know) as if it were canon from on high, meanwhile denouncing people on either side of the argument (ER with fly or no ER with fly) because they are making decisions based on what makes sense rather than what the "official ruling" is. (Which as I mentioned has yet to make an appearance.)

Sometimes even on the D&D rules forum you 've got to make a choice based on what you think is best. I'm predicting (though I could be wrong) that this thread will die an unremarkable death without the "official ruling" on the topic ever being known. And all of us DM's will have to go back to our games and make the best ruling we know how when creating that NPC Dragon and deciding whether or not to give him expeditious retreat....

 

[IceBear]

I'm not waiting for a ruling on high. In my DM's judgement from reading the spell, ER would double all movement rates - walking, running, flying, swimming, digging, etc.

That's what you wanted us to do right? I had made that judgement from the moment I read this thread. I based it on my reading of the spell, plus seeing it used with swimming and digging (I think) in some adventures.

I personally couldn't care less about this thread because it's not really that important to me. I remember back in the early 80s when I DM'ed and I didn't have access to rule forums like this. There were probably tons of stuff I did wrong because I wasn't told what was "right". Same thing applies here. If my ruling is wrong, well, it's only affecting my group. As long as my group is happy with my judgements I'm satisfied. If it gets published somewhere what the offical ruling is, I might switch to it if my group likes it. If they don't then I'll wait until the next campaign to make the change.

If it bothers you so much to find the offical answer please send a message to the Sage and see what he says. The thing is, even when the Sage makes a ruling the people that were on the opposite side of the ruling tend to stay on that side anyway, so it really doesn't make much of a difference.

IceBear

 

[Uller]

In the second place you all seem to be waiting for the "official ruling" (which has yet to make it's presence know) as if it were canon from on high, meanwhile denouncing people on either side of the argument (ER with fly or no ER with fly) because they are making decisions based on what makes sense rather than what the "official ruling" is. (Which as I mentioned has yet to make an appearance.)

Sometimes even on the D&D rules forum you 've got to make a choice based on what you think is best. I'm predicting (though I could be wrong) that this thread will die an unremarkable death without the "official ruling" on the topic ever being known. And all of us DM's will have to go back to our games and make the best ruling we know how when creating that NPC Dragon and deciding whether or not to give him expeditious retreat....

Sometimes on this forum we reach a consensus on a rules question and we all take it to the game table and play it that way. Example: the perpetually asked question: Does a rogue get to do sneak attack damage on his iterative attacks? The general consensus(you may find a few detractors) is that officially, rogues do indeed get to deal sneak attack damage on iterative attacks. I'm sure there are quite a few people around that would not understand that if it weren't for this forum.

Occasionally(it seems often, but only because the "debate" threads hang around longer) there is a profound and real disagreement on what the rules mean and what the designers intended them to mean. So we discuss them, point out flaws in eachothers arguements and so forth. The goal is _NOT_ to persuade the other side. The goal is to understand the rules as you interprit them and to find out flaws in that interpritation(occasionally someone will actually be swayed). As a player, I want to understand the ramifications of decisions I make for my character. As a DM, I want to be able to rule on the fly with confidence. (Edit: Also...it may be my engineering brain, but I like to fully understand something before I go trying to improve it. I try to use as few house rules as possible because I find house rules to be cumbersome. When I do make a house rule, I want to understand what I'm changing.)

Holding these debates ad nausim here means I am better equipped at the table. I am hands down the most knowledgable member of my group when it comes to the 3e rules(our other DM is often stuck in 2e mode and I have to jar him out of it). As a DM, this is a great plus. I can make a ruling and my players are confident that I am correct. As a player, the downside is that I often have to bite my tongue so I don't seem like a rules lawyer or that I am trying to usurp the DM's authority....

The really frustrating thing is for the person who asks the question that sparks one of these battle royals...If he is a DM, he is fine because he walks away with a full accounting of both POVs and can make a judgment call. If he is a player, however, he is screwed. Chances are, he asked the question to help him make a choice for his character and is no more equipped(maybe even less so) to make the decision than before. He must ask his DM and maybe point him to the debate...(of course, it is probably best to just ask your DM anyway and if the two of you disagree, bring it here for debate...but the DM still gets final say).

Edit: Back to the topic: How do you multiply the ER and Run speed boosts? If ER allows you to move 2x your speed and running allows you to move 4x your speed, what is the end result? 8x(speed X 4 X 2) or 5x(speed X (4+1)) as per the multiple multiplier rule?

 

[Ristamar]

This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. In the first place don't you think the official rules should be the ruling that makes the most sense?

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's still part of the problem. What "makes sense" is entirely subjective and is not always easily agreed upon. Not to mention there are countless criteria by which to judge what makes sense, and, needless to say, opinions always vary from person to person.

Do you simply abide by initial gut reaction?

Do you try to follow standards set in previous editions?

Do you go by precedents set by other existing rules?

Do you adhere to a strict literal interpretation?

Do you lean toward what you feel to be is designer intent?

Anyway, the point is that there's sometimes dozens of ways a rule in question can be argued and still make sense.

As other have mentioned before, I don't think anyone here was suggesting that you halt play to quibble and analyze rules. Most people will make calls on the spot if they're unsure of what to do. However, it is nice to know what the 'official' rule on such a given matter, even if you eventually choose not to use it anyway, because blindly changing the rule in the long term might have consequenses you hadn't orginally anticipated.

Also (and I may be speaking alone here), I think people like sticking to same general rules. It makes life much easier when playing with other people. I found the myriad of inconsistencies from group to group (or DM to DM) to be one of the most annoying aspects of 2e.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

This statement is exactly what I'm talking about. In the first place don't you think the official rules should be the ruling that makes the most sense?

In a word: no.

Let me explain. I play this game infrequently, and even then it's just a hobby. I don't have the resources or the experience to know everything that one little change can impact. WotC uses lots and lots of play testers, so they should have an idea what is balanced and what isn't.

When designing a game, you have to find a balance between the complexity of the rules and realism to maximize entertainment. If doing something in a way that makes sense creates more complex rules, that may not be the best way to do it because it may make it less fun.

These are all things that WotC designers think about every day, and something that they did a great deal of while designing 3E. I think they did a pretty darn good job. Certainly better than I could have done. So while I may think it makes more sense a particular way, I will concede that WotC's way is probably better for the game.

In the second place you all seem to be waiting for the "official ruling" (which has yet to make it's presence know) as if it were canon from on high, meanwhile denouncing people on either side of the argument (ER with fly or no ER with fly) because they are making decisions based on what makes sense rather than what the "official ruling" is. (Which as I mentioned has yet to make an appearance.)

I disagree. I haven't said anything about what makes sense because I really don't see a problem either way as far as realism goes. It's a spell for crist's sake. I really don't have a problem with a spell that increases all types of movement's speed, or a spell that increases just one type of movement's speed.

Sometimes even on the D&D rules forum you 've got to make a choice based on what you think is best. I'm predicting (though I could be wrong) that this thread will die an unremarkable death without the "official ruling" on the topic ever being known. And all of us DM's will have to go back to our games and make the best ruling we know how when creating that NPC Dragon and deciding whether or not to give him expeditious retreat....

If someone doesn't email the sage, I'm sure you are right that it will "die" with noone having a satisfactory "official" ruling. But it has been discussed and people have talked it out and formed opinions on it, and when it comes up in their own game, they know how they want to handle it.

All this tripe about "3E has crippled DMs" is silly. It has made the DM's job easier, so there will be fewer time the DM has to make a judgement call, but that doesn't make the DM any less able to make those calls. It just means they will have fewer chances to make a bad judgement call.

--Long Winded Spikey