Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 1407181" data-attributes="member: 259">My approach to these arguments is slightly different from Hypersmurf's:&nbsp; I'm not so much interested in the letter of the rules as in the spirit of the rules.&nbsp; That is, the rules generally focus on striking a balance between fun and plausibility, with a bias toward fun.&nbsp;If someone tells me that they're doing the bucket-o-snails trick, my defense against them isn't that on page 319, under &quot;vermin,&quot; we clearly see that vermin have a CON score of 12 or lower, and that vermin must breathe, and that the snails in the bag would be suffocating and can hold their breath for no longer than 36 rounds per the suffocation rules on page 184, and therefore are dead when they're thrown out of the bag and per the rule on page 16 must be treated as objects, which are not eligible for whirlwind attacks per the rule on page 288.&nbsp; &nbsp;My ruling is based on the fact that it's dorky and uncinematic, and no.&nbsp; &nbsp;I use similar reasoning for some other stuff, such as when a player wanted to use a portable hole, fill it to the brim with granite rocks, and use them as the target of animate object to create an ultrapowerful &quot;summoned&quot; creature in battles.&nbsp; Although there were plausibly rules-arguments against it, I told him that it was a cheesy use of the spell, uncinematic, and wasn't gonna cut it.&nbsp;But the forum here is useful to me for finding balance, for understanding why a strange-looking rule might actually be fun in play, or for learning how people have handled a strange situation before.&nbsp; It's also helpful to me to learn what my players might be expecting from their readings of the rules:&nbsp; if it turns out that you actually CAN dual-wield thrown daggers according to a single sentence on page 87, I wanna know about it before i make a spot-decision that you need the rapid-shot feat to pull that off.&nbsp;But I've not got any interest in complex arguments based on whether there's an asterisked comment on page 88 that does not include the word &quot;weapon,&quot; implying that the text of the attack maneuver on page 125 is not made with a weapon, which coupled with a monster's description on page 216 means the monster should not be considered armed.&nbsp;Daniel</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pielorinho, post: 1407181, member: 259"] My approach to these arguments is slightly different from [b]Hypersmurf's[/b]: I'm not so much interested in the letter of the rules as in the spirit of the rules. That is, the rules generally focus on striking a balance between fun and plausibility, with a bias toward fun. If someone tells me that they're doing the bucket-o-snails trick, my defense against them isn't that on page 319, under "vermin," we clearly see that vermin have a CON score of 12 or lower, and that vermin must breathe, and that the snails in the bag would be suffocating and can hold their breath for no longer than 36 rounds per the suffocation rules on page 184, and therefore are dead when they're thrown out of the bag and per the rule on page 16 must be treated as objects, which are not eligible for whirlwind attacks per the rule on page 288. My ruling is based on the fact that it's dorky and uncinematic, and no. I use similar reasoning for some other stuff, such as when a player wanted to use a portable hole, fill it to the brim with granite rocks, and use them as the target of [i]animate object[/i] to create an ultrapowerful "summoned" creature in battles. Although there were plausibly rules-arguments against it, I told him that it was a cheesy use of the spell, uncinematic, and wasn't gonna cut it. But the forum here is useful to me for finding balance, for understanding why a strange-looking rule might actually be fun in play, or for learning how people have handled a strange situation before. It's also helpful to me to learn what my players might be expecting from their readings of the rules: if it turns out that you actually CAN dual-wield thrown daggers according to a single sentence on page 87, I wanna know about it before i make a spot-decision that you need the rapid-shot feat to pull that off. But I've not got any interest in complex arguments based on whether there's an asterisked comment on page 88 that does not include the word "weapon," implying that the text of the attack maneuver on page 125 is not made with a weapon, which coupled with a monster's description on page 216 means the monster should not be considered armed. Daniel [/QUOTE]

Verification