Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7019836" data-attributes="member: 996">It is, quite probably, futile, yes.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; There are a lot of things not directly or unequivocally stated in the rules, and the DM is free to rule the way he sees fit in those (many) instances.&nbsp; Perversely, that includes picking one interpretation to consider 'RAW' and sticking to it even when it turns nonsensical.&nbsp;If you want to express your (unfounded, IMHO) opinion about another edition of D&amp;D in a discussion of 5e, you can, of course, do so, but you may be adding to your already Sisyphean challenge by painting yourself as a prejudiced h4ter who is only arguing against a valid interpretation of a 5e rule because it resembles a more clearly-stated rule in 4e.&nbsp; &nbsp; Make no mistake:&nbsp; you're on the right side of the 5e argument, in calling for case-by-case DM rulings, instead of sticking like glue to a half-imagined parsing of RAW even when it makes no sense (well as a similar rule may have worked in a past edition).&nbsp; 5e's design philosophy includes erring on the side of natural language, and encouraging DM Empowerment and 'rulings not rules.'&nbsp; Everything about 5e is lined up on your side of the argument.&nbsp; So you're shooting yourself in the foot with the 4e-did-it-that-way-so-it-must-be-wrong edition-war reasoning.&nbsp;I do.&nbsp; In 4e.&nbsp; where it worked very well (and was, BTW, the result of errata to address confusion over the topic much like we've seen this whole time - only out in less than a year).&nbsp; It's not relevant, here.&nbsp; In 5e, I prefer to make a ruling (and, not coincidentally, prefer to DM).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7019836, member: 996"] It is, quite probably, futile, yes. ;) There are a lot of things not directly or unequivocally stated in the rules, and the DM is free to rule the way he sees fit in those (many) instances. Perversely, that includes picking one interpretation to consider 'RAW' and sticking to it even when it turns nonsensical. If you want to express your (unfounded, IMHO) opinion about another edition of D&D in a discussion of 5e, you can, of course, do so, but you may be adding to your already Sisyphean challenge by painting yourself as a prejudiced h4ter who is only arguing against a valid interpretation of a 5e rule because it resembles a more clearly-stated rule in 4e. Make no mistake: you're on the right side of the 5e argument, in calling for case-by-case DM rulings, instead of sticking like glue to a half-imagined parsing of RAW even when it makes no sense (well as a similar rule may have worked in a past edition). 5e's design philosophy includes erring on the side of natural language, and encouraging DM Empowerment and 'rulings not rules.' Everything about 5e is lined up on your side of the argument. So you're shooting yourself in the foot with the 4e-did-it-that-way-so-it-must-be-wrong edition-war reasoning. I do. In 4e. where it worked very well (and was, BTW, the result of errata to address confusion over the topic much like we've seen this whole time - only out in less than a year). It's not relevant, here. In 5e, I prefer to make a ruling (and, not coincidentally, prefer to DM). [/QUOTE]

Verification