D&D General Times you misinterpreted a rule... But preferred the misinterpretation

BookTenTiger

He / Him
Way back in 3rd Edition, my group and I played for a while misinterpreting the Flanking rules. I forget exactly how it went, but we thought that being Flanked meant you lost your Dex bonus to AC. It made flanking extremely advantageous.

Eventually we realized Flanking just gave a +2 to attacks (if I recall correctly).

However, we liked our version better! We liked the idea of Flanking being deadly, and promoting more movement around the battlefield.

What are times that you have misinterpreted a rule in D&D, but preferred (or even kept) the misinterpretation?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Truth or Dragon. You ask someone for a Truth, and if they don't want to answer then you give them a Dragon.

I didn't realize for 20 years that you pick one or the other up front. And I still don't know why people play it that way.
 
Last edited:

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
I interpreted Thunder Wave as a 15’ cube with the caster in the center, potentially pushing away and damaging anyone adjacent to them. I saw it as the “anti-getting surrounded” spell.

While it has been cleared up for me that that is not how it works, I prefer it that way (makes it a more niche but interesting spell). My group, however, decided to play it as intended much to my chagrin. 🫤 🥱
 



Fanaelialae

Legend
Many years ago, back in 2e, I had a player who was playing his first cleric. He asked me how to turn undead. I explained the rules to him, he gave me a confused look, and asked "But how do I turn undead?"

We went back and forth like the old Abbott and Costello skit until finally it dawned on me that he thought the ability allowed him to turn into an undead. Which, to this day, I still think would be a cool alternative for evil clerics. Maybe I'll eventually get around to implementing it.
 

MarkB

Legend
Many years ago, back in 2e, I had a player who was playing his first cleric. He asked me how to turn undead. I explained the rules to him, he gave me a confused look, and asked "But how do I turn undead?"

We went back and forth like the old Abbott and Costello skit until finally it dawned on me that he thought the ability allowed him to turn into an undead. Which, to this day, I still think would be a cool alternative for evil clerics. Maybe I'll eventually get around to implementing it.
As I recall, in 3.5e it was translated that way in at lest one foreign-language printing.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Do you remember when we allthought elemental affinity added your Charisma bonus to all the damage rolls and not just the first one? Then they errata'd that interpetation away?
 

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
Many years ago, back in 2e, I had a player who was playing his first cleric. He asked me how to turn undead. I explained the rules to him, he gave me a confused look, and asked "But how do I turn undead?"

We went back and forth like the old Abbott and Costello skit until finally it dawned on me that he thought the ability allowed him to turn into an undead. Which, to this day, I still think would be a cool alternative for evil clerics. Maybe I'll eventually get around to implementing it.

This reminds me of someone I knew who as a kid thought turned undead, stood in place and just spun around, unable to do anything else.
 

Apparently, we were all misinterpreting the Death and Dying Rules from Pathfinder 2 - so much that they errata'ed the rules to fit the popular misinterpretation.
... that's your interpretation of what happened.

The Core Rulebook over 4 revisions have the current rules. The Gamemastery Screen disagreed, but never had any errata.

It is true that the preview of Player Core had a rule that matched what was in the Gamemastery Screen, but before release Paizo said they were releasing errata to ensure that the correct rule was put into Player Core, which matched what was in Core Rulebook.

I know a former developer of the game stated what they treated the rule as, but any evidence of that rule existing in the released game was entirely based on a confusing sidebar that was explicitly removed from Player Core, and most people ignored or glossed over in the Core Rulebook.

The people using the harsher ruling were misinterpreting the rules.

What's much more likely is that when Player Core was being updated, someone found the contradiction between the Core Rulebook and the Gamemastery Screen, saw that the latter had come out after the Core Rulebook, and put in that incorrect version of the rule into Player Core; this wasn't caught until those who got the preview grab held of it. Paizo hasn't stated that's how it happened - but what they have stated indicated they made a mistake when releasing Player Core (and by extension, Gamemastery Screen).

To believe otherwise is to state that Paizo lied about why they were issuing an errata, that Paizo changed a fundamental rule without announcing it for ~reasons~, and that in 4 years of errata and checking issues, Paizo never corrected their main product.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top