Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DaveDash" data-source="post: 6619101" data-attributes="member: 6786202">Ruling things like where monsters are looking is just asking for the game to grind down to a halt. That's the last thing the DM should be dealing with when he is already dealing with information overload. That's why in a game, many things are abstracted away.You're under the mistaken impression that I need help interpreting it.However, it's a rule. It's tied to mechanics. And it's tied to certain class and racial features. It's certainly not just whimsical flavor text.Because ultimately we're playing a game, we're not playing cops and robbers. By this same logic the DM can just say "Well, sorry Jim, the monster was watching you cast fireball and gets advantage on his dexterity save. Too bad buddy". Uhh no thank you.Then suddenly you're not really playing D&D any more, your playing Dave the DM's story time - jump on and enjoy the ride!I don't want to play that kind of game, neither does anyone at my table. But if that's how you want to play, more power to you. You are a player too, just first among equals. I think many DM's who love the old "rulings not rules" philosophy forget that. The player legitimately felt that this was a class feature that was being unfairly nerfed, it's not about "letting" anything. We are all adults and most of us are DM's ourselves, and his point of view was perfectly valid and arguable within the rules.You also haven't read my posts very well, so go back and read them, because you're making a lot of mistakes in your arguments that you're repeating over and over:1. I'm not the DM in this situation.2. No argument happened in game, however, it happened out of game, and did for a time result in a pissed off player.3. All of the players arguments were perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable, and perfectly logical. The rules however are too vague, so the actual DM made a call based on balance. I don't agree with the players interpretation on the stealth mechanics, but I definitely agree that he has a VERY valid case, and that the rules are NOT black and white like some people here like to pretend.If the rules were simple and elegant like you and others make them out to be, there wouldn't be a thousand threads arguing about it, the argument wouldn't have happened at my table, and we wouldn't be in this argument at all.Case closed as far as I'm concerned.</blockquote>

Verification