Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6631122" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!&nbsp; I think we honestly agree with each other...it's just some of the semantics that we have different thoughts on. The actual outcome for both of us seems to be in total agreement: The DM should change stuff to what makes sense for the monster/situation/campaign. I also agree that &quot;RAW&quot; is pretty much &quot;RA(ksiaw)W&quot;.. .&quot;Rules As (kinda-sorta-in-a-way) Written&quot; as far as 5e goes. Like the Pirates Code....more of a guideline than actual rules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; I also agree that if they do come out with some form of &quot;Rule-From-On-High&quot; or other 'errata' (I hate that term for things that are rule changes/clarifications) for stuff, it should be deliberately worded to favor DM interpretation, just as you said. IMHO, the less an argumentative player can point to in a book and unequivocally say &quot;See! Right here! I can swim and still attack with my bow!' (or whatever silliness they come up with), the better it is for the game. When rules use generalizations for description (re: some vagueness), it's much easier for a DM to say &quot;Yeah, I see your point...but that's silly, so I'm still saying no; I'll let your tread water, DC 25 Athletics, and shoot your bow...but no moving forward; you fail, you loose your action that round and an arrow&quot;. That's good DM'ing. Caving into the player by conceding that &quot;by the rules&quot; there's nothing to stop him from swimming and firing a bow at the same time.... that's bad DM'ing.(Sorry for the minor diversion there... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6631122, member: 45197"] Hiya! I think we honestly agree with each other...it's just some of the semantics that we have different thoughts on. The [I]actual outcome[/I] for both of us seems to be in total agreement: The DM should change stuff to what makes sense for the monster/situation/campaign. I also agree that "RAW" is pretty much "RA[I](ksiaw)[/I]W".. ."Rules As [I](kinda-sorta-in-a-way)[/I] Written" as far as 5e goes. Like the Pirates Code....more of a guideline than actual rules. ;) I also agree that if they do come out with some form of "Rule-From-On-High" or other 'errata' (I hate that term for things that are rule changes/clarifications) for stuff, it should be deliberately worded to favor DM interpretation, just as you said. IMHO, the less an argumentative player can point to in a book and unequivocally say [I]"See! Right here! I can swim and still attack with my bow!'[/I] (or whatever silliness they come up with), the better it is for the game. When rules use generalizations for description (re: some vagueness), it's much easier for a DM to say "Yeah, I see your point...but that's silly, so I'm still saying no; I'll let your tread water, DC 25 Athletics, and shoot your bow...but no moving forward; you fail, you loose your action that round and an arrow". That's good DM'ing. Caving into the player by conceding that "by the rules" there's nothing to stop him from swimming and firing a bow at the same time.... that's bad DM'ing. (Sorry for the minor diversion there... :) ). ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification