Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 9756803" data-attributes="member: 59057">Ok. I take your word for it. As I said, during the game we probably would find an ad hoc ruling and then have a mature discussion which interpretation to use in future sessions. My compass usually is: how would players like it if I as a DM find such a way to circumvent a limitation from a class.If I imagine them not applauding me for finding that, I'd probably rule against that. In a 3.5 game, every melee fighter multiclassed one level of barbarian to gain rage, no matter what noble and urban background they had. While this is clearly OK ruleswise, I asked them to have an in game justification at least. My players told me that this is technically not a requirement. Next time they encountered trolls, they all had a level of barbarian (totally in line with the monster building rules of 3.5).Guess how much they liked it. After that, player characters started to make sense again. If your players and you like finding such rules interactions, that is totally fine. I will rule also rule against ready to double dip sneak attacks without perceivable triggers that enemies actually trigger. I will rule against grabbing the spirit guardian cleric and carry them around 5 times in the same 6 seconds to multiply the damage. That does not mean that this is bad wrong fun, but this is not a game I would like to run as DM nor want to take part as a player.</blockquote>