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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6691819" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm normally one that loves rambling off topic discussions, but this one seems to be bringing in discussions from prior threads that never really the point of this thread as far as I can see, and is turning into something that sounds like a let's berate Greenfield session.I don't think the intention of this thread was to discuss power levels.  I think it's rather incidental to the discussion that some rules when applied may weaken or strengthen particular builds.  The infamous problem player so frequently discussed elsewhere wasn't even mentioned in the OP.What's interesting to me are topics like, "How do we go about writing rules?" and "How do we go about reading rules?"The haste rules for example appear to me to contain a clause meant to be only explanatory, "that they are holding", but which in fact turns out to reduce clarity rather than increase it.  Myself, I'm going to go to my own copy of the rules and see whether the clause is in there, and if it is scratch out the clause as an example of bad rules smithing.But am I misreading the clause, and does that matter?  Was the clause really intended by the original writer to be effective and limiting?  Did they through some line of reasoning really think to themselves, "No, this would be better if it didn't increase natural or unarmed attacks", and if they did or I think it really a possibility, how should I respond to that?   The very fact that I have my own copy of the rules ought to suggest I've already answered the question for myself, but it would be really interesting to me to hear other theories and look at other examples.</blockquote>

Verification