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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 1808879" data-attributes="member: 5724">Well sneak attacking undead is one. You can't do it without changing the core rules. You can't grapple incorporeal creatures, falling damage is utterly silly.. the list is endless.This isn't to say that you can't have these things happen, just to say that in order for them to happen (like a cleric throwing a fireball) you have to change fundamental design rules. You can even have these things happen in a manner which is more consistant with the core rules, and generally, that's the best way to go in order to minimize any potential unseen conflicts.There's nothing important in the design rules except when measured against the result the rule has according to "fun." Ie. A good rule that results in less fun isn't a good rule (ie something like a more realistic falling damage system), while a bad rule that results in more fun isn't a bad rule (the fact that you can cut yourself out of a giant monster and it "magically" seal up and the next person swallowed has to do the same). This is true regardless of how "mechanically correct" the rule is. They're two separate things.Also, I don't mean to imply that using more consistant-with-core-rules rules is ruining the fun. Not in the least. They're what I prefer. But more than that, I want rules that adjudicate what I want to happen regardless of what other rules may say, as long as what I want to happen isn't detrimental to the fun had by all.Which is why the rules are really aways secondary to a good DM, good players, and a desire by all for fun to be had by all.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification