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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="briggart" data-source="post: 9404926" data-attributes="member: 6805135">Agreed, but at the same time I think that the opinion of the person who is in charge of the rules and was specifically the lead on the PHB where these rules are found, should inform the discussion on unclear parts of the rules.In my original reply to [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER] I mentioned that while I agree with them that RAW total cover requires concealment, in my opinion that was not RAI, which lead to referring back to Crawford. Regardless of whether I agree or not with his rulings etc., I usually find the explanation for such rulings interesting. It's not an excuse. But it is the reason why the rules don't provide the level of clarity you were looking for. I understand it was a rhetorical question, mine was a rhetorical answer, sorry if it wasn't clear <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />We are stuck with the self-help version of D&D: "The TTRPG rules you were looking for were inside you all along!". I don't like it. I know I can make up all the rules, but the reason I buy a rule book is exactly because I don't want to. I want a robust core that mostly stands on its own, with end-user input required mostly for corner cases. To me 5e falls short of that, but I've made my peace with it. At least on a good day.</blockquote>

Verification