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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7423410" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Ok, but you realize that by your definition of power and value coming from "how powerful is it in the situation that is the game you are playing in"... that all options are "Potent Build Tools"?I mean, I would be really hard pressed to think of an option that could not be powerful in the specific contest of a game and or party, so your dismissiveness towards the people getting upset makes even less sense. Honestly, if you believe all options can be powerful, then you can't really decide that people are only upset because they are losing a powerful option. Any option would be powerful, so losing anything would make them upset. If you want to defend your position because some people give more weight to certain options than you feel is necessary, then you also have to acknowledge that many of those people who give that weight were not giving that weight to Shield Master.I mean, maybe you can be dismissive and inclusive at the same time, but I would find that a very hard position to keep.  Okay, can I just ask something first. Why do you keep quoting people with quotation marks instead of the quote function? I've noticed it dozens of times in this thread and I can't help but wonder what the purpose is. If you want to respond to something I said but don't want people to know I said it... why even bother with the quotes?Onto Houserules. I agree with you. I also have no problem with houserules and don't see them as "lesser rules" in any way. However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules. There is no way to debate this ruling in terms of "are we limiting the abuse of an ability" because there is zero evidence that using Shield Master to knock an enemy prone first was abusive of the rules. As we were discussing earlier, this was not an option that topped the charts or even got talked about a lot before this ruling. However, some of the rules language being used to justify this clarification on Shield Master may have larger consequences for the game. For example, this idea of indivisible actions that can be divided by bonus actions unless the bonus action says it cannot divide the action. This is confusing and concerning if it ends up becoming the default accepted way of looking at the game. It also may inform future design decisions and thus is important for us to figure out. Plus, let us be honest here, a lot of people who get on the Internet to talk DnD love arguing semantics. We have an excessive number of highly educated people in fields that require that type of thinking, and it breeds a certain atmosphere around the game. I think that nested action thing is becoming a real sticking point for me. There are more bonus actions that can be taken within an attack action than there are bonus actions that cannot. When the specific rule outnumbers the general rule by that large of margin, you may be looking at the wrong general rule.</blockquote>

Verification