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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Creamsteak" data-source="post: 6972905" data-attributes="member: 552">I was one of the people that commented in the negative for it and still do.It's not that it would ever be an actual problem in my real games, I have mitigating factors like common sense and playing with friends that share game goals with me. I don't think the "solution" you describe is incorrect, but I think you are conflating your own sense of common sense with what kinds of rules should be in the rulebooks.It's actually a bit funny to me that in that same article they introduced the more restrictive rules for animal companions, where once again the rules could work fine for your group or mine, but some people do end up finding themselves in groups where very explicit clear rules work and open-to-interpretation rules create problems. Let's say a GM, for any reason, doesn't believe your druid can shapeshift into a dire wolf, versus a player who presumes they can always play a dire wolf druid. I don't have these problems currently, but I have seen these kinds of problems before.The awareness this granted I didn't like because it was worded more in the explicit rules way and not the interpretive way you're using, and with it's explicit wording it made it seem like monster radar that would raise questions I couldn't easily answer.Really, at the end of the day I would imagine this skill itself, especially under the interpretation you are using, also just seems like "information you might get from the Survival skill". There's a good argument that just giving rangers double (or even triple) proficiency to survival and maybe the relevant knowledge skill when tracking their favored enemies might have been a cleaner solution on all counts.</blockquote>

Verification