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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1853156" data-attributes="member: 812">Okay, that's fine. I think it IS sufficiently consistent and logical, and certainly my experience has been that when I make off-the-cuff rulings, they're usually very similar to the actual rules as written.Again, though, you seem to be saying the same thing I'm saying: that making off-the-cuff rules tends to diminish the value of rules mastery, because certain rules inevitably get nerfed and thus the people who put in time to learn and take advantage of those rules don't get any value out of having done so.Some see that as "ruins the game". I see it as "discourages rules mastery". Same thing. I would argue, however, that your use of the former reveals YOUR tendency to value rules mastery. Both you and eyebeams seem to think that anything that renders rules knowledge less useful is objectively bad.I'm saying it devalues rules mastery. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. A game that devalues rules mastery to some degree is a game that encourages things besides rules mastery, any of which might be MORE valuable to some people than rules mastery. Having your Combat Reflexes feat nerfed is only important if you CARE about your Combat Reflexes feat. People don't have to care about that. They might care about how much money their character has. They might care about hanging out with their friends. They might care about what's going to happen next.But you find 3E too complex to easily wing it. That's fair enough, and explains to me why you find it encourages more than discourages rules mastery. I hope it's clear that since I find it simple to wing it, from my perspective it discourages rules mastery.There doesn't have to be one right answer. There almost never is. But it's interesting hearing how other people think.</blockquote>

Verification