Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7971072" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Agreed, though interesting 3E, 4E, and 5E show them kind of getting successively better at wording stuff to avoid these kind of problems. 3E first attempts this, but has a lot of careless language and not-considering-the-full-ramifications. 4E is far tighter and tends to limit the secondary fall-out of stuff, but fails to account for how many things in brought in (so you don't get Pun-Pun, but you do get some pretty hilarious DPRs), and they tried to solve the "whoops we didn't think of that" with errata, which hmmmm had mixed success (but avoided any disasters, I feel). 5E has tried, generally, to use extremely clear language, keep everything very simple, and prevent crunch growth to together minimize the need for interpretation and so on. Almost all the problems 5E has come from spells, I note, which seem to have been given a little less of a thorough checking than other stuff (though again, it's still pretty thorough!).</p></blockquote><p></p>