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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 1078637" data-attributes="member: 6239">So darkness, UD, harm and the others that have been mentioned are perfectly clear because you say they are?  If it was 1 person, I might agree, but many people seem to have opposite views on this that so perfectly clear to you.  So we debate.  If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.  I think any rule that several people can say is clearly one thing and another group say is clearly the oppsite is poorly written by any standards of writing.The editor isn't an english major?  They need a new editor.  What did he major in, Russian?  Some one needs to be responsible for the language being clear, even if they are imperfect.  In cases of mistakes, WotC should suck it up, post FAQ, and get on with it.As for being lawers, I ask you what the hell 3.5 is if not the mother of all counter rule-lawering.  They closed loopholes and changed gobs of layout and grammer.  They focused on updating the language and elinating holes.  If you say it is your goal to fix things and don't fix things, I tend to think you did something wrong.  Not fulfilling a stated goal is something that annoys me.  I don't care if it was a politician or game company.  I guess I am the only person who thinks people should stick to their word.How many designers have left WotC since this grand D&D 3e thing started?  Do they all agree?  Even Skip isn't offical apparently.  Andy isn't answering rule questions and customer support is worthless.  Trying to get a straight answer out of that tangled mess is doomed to failure.So then there is intent from context.  Another great place to find answers. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> We can throw examples back and forth how either entirely different case makes perfect sense.  This won't give any more of a clear answer than the "offical" folks.Game balance is nice to look at, but everyone runs a different game what is broken to you is standard fair to me.  Even the things that were called "broken" in 3e many didn't agree with.  This will never get a clear answer.All of the english examples with UD were valid.  People were trying to understand what was written.  Here of all places it would be nice to say "it really doesn't say that".  But no, it is just more vague language.  All the attempts to understand it were just as valid as asking someone official, determining intent from context, or game balance.All of the above are part and parcel of D&D rule debate here.  None are invalid, all have their place, and no one should ever try to stop any of them.</blockquote>

Verification