| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Kensan_OniSep 21, 2008 10:33:25 | Seriously. We have significant issues with how you people are writing your rules. I mean, simple grammatical errors aside, you people use wordings that are as clear as mud, and are causing conflicts of all sorts. My key example that I love to bring out is prepare. I am not sure who among you thought prepare meant choose. The old Memorize told you to choose. No where does Prepare mean choose, even in the most liberal of dictionaries. I'm not sure what development is doing to have missed such a glaring obmission, but it got through, and your own staff weeble wobbled on this until you came out to clarify. Today, it was the Gelatinous Cube. Yesterday is it Spellscars and Implements. Look, you need to add a step to your process, because quite frankly, your editors are not gamers, and are not reading what you are handing to them the way your designers are. BEFORE you release anything, you need to hand each individual power outside of the group, and ask them what it means. For example, Let's take the Engulf power. Hand it to five people. Ask them a series of questions about the power, such as "If a Gelatinous Cube is given flight by the Monster's Controller, what happens to anything it's grabbed?" and see what answers you get back. If the number of answers you get back doesn't match the expected outcome, you need to go back and write it again, making sure that your intent is clear. People love your game, but you're lack of writing using normal game terms is causing more arguments then answers, and then we keep turning back to you, who should have been more focused on making sure these questions didn't end up back in your laps to begin with. All I ask is please, pass the rule around to people who don't know you, and ask them about it without you being around, without leading the questions. That's all I ask. |
| #2StevemanSep 21, 2008 11:00:22 | I almost hurt myself in laughter upon seeing this thread... You see, I was playing a game of D&D last night and it was fun, very fun. Myself, being the DM that I am just ran with it when the players wanted to explore a dungeon they had heard about in rumors (planned on them going there after the current story... but I digress). So I was making the dungeon on the fly (using monster cards I made up just just this very type of situation) The party encountered a... gelatinous cube! Vwoot! Cubes are fun! :3 ... well, no they aren't when it engulfs a character, then the party leashes it back three rooms and gets it stuck in the telekinesis trap (lifts the characters 10 feet off the ground and just holds them there)... yeah... engulf needed to be rewritten. But anyway, I agree with Kensan Oni on this. |
| #3catzoSep 21, 2008 12:17:05 | Completely agred. Another good example is the Pact Hammer. |
| #4nephliteSep 21, 2008 13:16:25 | Completely agred. Another good example is the Pact Hammer. That isn't a editing issue but a mechanics one. They forgot it doesn't let you exceed limitation of 1/round and thus worthless. |
| #5d1tremereSep 21, 2008 13:42:09 | Seriously. We have significant issues with how you people are writing your rules. I mean, simple grammatical errors aside, you people use wordings that are as clear as mud, and are causing conflicts of all sorts. D&D is like the Windows operating system in some ways , open enough to allow lots of customization. Because of this everyone's D&D experience will be slightly different from the standard, as such it would be hard if not impossible to write rules which can clearly and fully handle every possible scenario. This is where the creative and intelligent thought of a DM and a group comes in, and what allows each campaign to be unique in some ways. I'm not saying there's never a rule which couldn't be better worded or thought out, but I think you are seriously over reacting in your call for every single rule to be analyzed by a group for rigid clarity. |
| #6eldritch_lordSep 21, 2008 14:02:14 | D&D is like the Windows operating system in some ways , open enough to allow lots of customization. There's a big difference between a rule handling every possible scenario and not working as written. Say you have a power that lets you swap places with someone, ally or enemy. A creative use of that would be moving into a trap and then swapping an enemy into it, or--even better--a wizard flying up over a gap and transposing with an enemy so they fall into it. Creative and perfectly legal. If one person reading that power thinks you can swap with only enemies, and one thinks only allies, and one thinks either one (as long as you're adjacent) thanks to bad editing, that's where ruling diverges from creative interpretation and verges into "make stuff up because the book doesn't work" territory. |
| #7StevemanSep 21, 2008 14:02:46 | Though focus-group testing of every single rule/power/item/whatever may be a bit overzealous, bringing focus groups of gamers for a second round of editing on some of the nonstandard powers/items is not only called for, but down-right needed. |
| #8Kensan_OniSep 21, 2008 14:03:10 | Let us be clear, not every power of course needs this. A lot of your standard attack powers do not, obviously. However, things that are not following a standard formula need to be scrutinized more. Spellscars and implements are a good example. No where in the process of making the class did a designer stop and say "Which implement?" because the designers bounced the idea back and forth amongst themselves. One can assume that they explained what implement meant to them, and went "Okay, that makes sense", and then just moved on. However, the rules got out, and here we have a class that leaves which implement up in limbo. Is the Scar an Implement? Is it whatever implement you are using for the base class? Do Holy Symbols Count, considering it's an arcane power? No where is there any MENTION of which implement you can use with the powers, and every other class in the game mentions which one you must use with the class. One short paragraph could have cleared the whole confusion up, but it wasn't put in. It wasn't about saving space. They had the space. It was that no one thought it was important enough to put down. THIS is why it is important to have outside eyes look at things. The problem is even worse in the Adventure's Vault, from what I gather. Abilities were given to items that were not completely tested out, or the developers didn't foresee some of the basic abuses because they are not looking for them. This is fine, but an outside group might have caught some of them. This is not an over reaction. When wording of what should be basic abilities are written so that they can not be understood, and that are key parts of a class ability, then something is wrong. There needs to be tighter checks. |
| #9archangel_jamesSep 21, 2008 18:56:21 | I don't get it. Do you guys play without DMs or something? I've DMed for years, and whenever a case like this came up, I didn't say, "Gee, I don't know. Why don't I email Wizards and find out." No, I made a decision and we continued playing. |
| #10xmen510Sep 21, 2008 20:19:39 | The only thing I can add here is that they are just to vague in their descriptions of how things work. They need to be more concise with their descriptions for me. |
| #11StevemanSep 21, 2008 20:48:29 | I don't get it. Do you guys play without DMs or something? I've DMed for years, and whenever a case like this came up, I didn't say, "Gee, I don't know. Why don't I email Wizards and find out." No, I made a decision and we continued playing. I am a DM. 4th-edition has done a whole hell of a lot to make my job easier, and for the most part it has. I no longer dread winging it. I no longer need to to 4-6 hours of homework just to build some combat encounters. But the number of mid-game judgement calls I have to make has remained unchanged... and a lot of them are more common-sense stuff I hadn't needed to do in older editions. |
| #12Kensan_OniSep 21, 2008 21:07:25 | I don't get it. Do you guys play without DMs or something? I've DMed for years, and whenever a case like this came up, I didn't say, "Gee, I don't know. Why don't I email Wizards and find out." No, I made a decision and we continued playing. Obviously, you've never player with Rules Moguls who insist on arguing rules, often being proven by rules that they are right. While I am fine with them being right, the job of knowing if they are right, or just simply making it up, is hard to do when the rules themselves are not helping the matter. |
| #13ryukatanaSep 22, 2008 2:27:44 | "Umm... tell your Rules Lawyer that you're the DM, so they can sit down and shut up, or leave, unless the party as a whole has a problem with your decision. My PCs know that I make the rules, and if the majority of them disagree with a ruling or house rule, they can tell me and I'll fix it. How is that even kind of hard?" "I don't know what kind of groups people are playing with, but every DM in every campaign I have ever been in has always been in control... If you don't like it, you shut up or you leave... If the PARTY doesn't like it, the DM has to rethink things. If the DM is constantly opposed to the party, the DM needs to stop DMing or find another group." |
| #14Titanium_DragonSep 22, 2008 2:37:53 | My primary issue is their lack of care in writing stuff; they make stuff that obviously is going to cause problems in play, but obviously aren't looking it over critically trying to find these things. A good example is the Orb of Imposition from the Player's Handbook, or the Bloodclaw and Radiant Weapons from the Adventurer's Vault. I generally haven't had too much trouble understanding what stuff is supposed to do, but I have more trouble figuring out why they make stuff which is blatently overpowered or broken. |
| #15Kensan_OniSep 22, 2008 10:18:56 | "Umm... tell your Rules Lawyer that you're the DM, so they can sit down and shut up, or leave, unless the party as a whole has a problem with your decision. My PCs know that I make the rules, and if the majority of them disagree with a ruling or house rule, they can tell me and I'll fix it. How is that even kind of hard?" Ryuka, when you have to make house rules because the rules are not clear on what they are trying to communicate, then you have issues, yes? This isn't about rules moguls, per say. This isn't even about "I'm the DM, I say what the rules mean.". This is about having rules that are clear enough where I as a DM or Player don't need to have to make to guess what the rules mean. This is about having rules clear enough where everyone knows what is meant when they read it, instead of six different impressions that the rules can not confirm due to poor grammar and glaring omissions. If you want to argue about how DM's should have better control of their games, let's take that to General. This isn't about that. This is about understanding the rules. That is in the hands of the developers to clearly communicate their ideas. All I am asking is that they double check their work outside of their circle, and that they word things clearly and precisely, because so far, they've had some fabulous failures at that. |
| #16Kensan_OniSep 22, 2008 10:20:55 | My primary issue is their lack of care in writing stuff; they make stuff that obviously is going to cause problems in play, but obviously aren't looking it over critically trying to find these things. A good example is the Orb of Imposition from the Player's Handbook, or the Bloodclaw and Radiant Weapons from the Adventurer's Vault. I generally haven't had too much trouble understanding what stuff is supposed to do, but I have more trouble figuring out why they make stuff which is blatently overpowered or broken. Oh, I agree that's an issue, too. However, I can just disallow things like that in a game. I'm not too worried about that, although I admit it they should have known a little better. I think this is really an extension of my issue, though, where they aren't having outside eyes look at things, and the way they are using things and talking amongst themselves isn't bringing up the issues that people outside of the circle are seeing. |
| #17ryukatanaSep 22, 2008 16:32:12 | Ryuka, when you have to make house rules because the rules are not clear on what they are trying to communicate, then you have issues, yes? "Okay, using the Gelatinous Cube reference... I understand it just fine... I see no misinterpretation... Do you lack a grasp of the English language perhaps? That's an honest question, by the way, because I am constantly astounded by how few people grasp the language they speak, not to mention deem it so very unclear (not to say it isn't often unclear, which is one of the main issues with DnD, language is all interpretation, not just English)." "The issue I think most people are having, is refusing to make a judgment call, which WotC is expecting DMs to make. Either logic trumps rules, or the game mechanics trump logic... Like in the case mentioned before about tripping Gelatinous Cubes (again with the cubes... I hate cubes, but I almost got eaten by Jello in a previous campaign, so I'm a little bitter). In my games, logic trumps rules, fun trumps logic... Like rock paper scissors, if the scissors were dull (since rules don't trump fun)." "If you can't do that, go back to 3e... there's plenty of material there, 4e is like the Pirate's Code (stick with me here), more like strict guidelines that everyone almost always adheres to, but can be weaved around when necessary..." "Either way, I hope WotC keeps it that way, and I can't make your games fun for you... I have NEVER not needed house rules for DnD... The great thing about 4e is... I'm never worried whether or not my house rules are good." |
| #18Kensan_OniSep 22, 2008 17:59:48 | I don't care what you do personally in your games, Ryuka. This isn't about my game. This isn't about your game. The fact that you admit you have to house rule when running Gelatinous Cubes proves my point. This is about EVERYBODY'S game. I want you to go to your monster manual, go to page 214, and read the swallowed entry of the Purple Worm. Just do it. Now imagine that you are not the kind and gentle game master that you seem to be, but a killer DM. What is going to happen? If you say that the player gets eaten by the Purple Worm, and is inside the purple worm, and is moving around inside the purple worm, go back and read it again. While common sense says "Swallowing means I'm inside someone", Swallow is not a keyword. It's not defined by the rules in any fashion. As an evil Gamemaster, I am allowed to ignore it, because it doesn't have any rules. In fact, by the definition of the Restrained Status, I very specifically can't move that figure that got hit by the swallow attack. I now move the purple worm under the battlemat it's full burrow movement. The players can't rescue the player, the player is stuck on the surface, taking 20 points of damage a round, and they are taking damage every round that they can't stop, because they can't attack the monster to kill it. Death. By Rules As Written. You as a kind and gentle gamemaster will say "But that's not what swallowed means" and I will tell you, yes, you are right by English Oxford Dictionary Definition. However, that is not what the rules say. What the rules mean, and what they say are clearly two different things, and it is this paradox that is the crux of my complaint. Better wording helps both players and gamemasters avoid situations just like the one I outlined. It's not about common sense and logic. Common sense to one person does not equal common sense to another. Precise, Fair, and well worded rules, without omissions for things that are assumed by 'common sense' create a better play environment that doesn't rely on referee judgment. What you think happens in your game might mean something different in someone else's game, and if the wording of rules, or specifically the lack of use of common terms for words and vague rules for unusual situations creates an even further gap. Quite simply, just because you don't see the need, doesn't mean the need doesn't exist, and even I think you really would like it if you didn't have to have players question your judgment calls because they don't see the rules the way you do, because of poor wording. |
| #19ryukatanaSep 22, 2008 22:18:29 | I don't care what you do personally in your games, Ryuka. This isn't about my game. This isn't about your game. The fact that you admit you have to house rule when running Gelatinous Cubes proves my point. This is about EVERYBODY'S game. "Read that again:" "Okay, using the Gelatinous Cube reference... I understand it just fine... I see no misinterpretation... Do you lack a grasp of the English language perhaps? That's an honest question, by the way, because I am constantly astounded by how few people grasp the language they speak, not to mention deem it so very unclear (not to say it isn't often unclear, which is one of the main issues with DnD, language is all interpretation, not just English)." "I said, 'I SEE NO MISINTERPRETATION'! I don't need ANY house rule, it is CLEAR to me..." I want you to go to your monster manual, go to page 214, and read the swallowed entry of the Purple Worm. Just do it. Now imagine that you are not the kind and gentle game master that you seem to be, but a killer DM. What is going to happen? "What about it? I catch a PC, it's stuck until the creature dies... Tough, yes... but what else do you expect from a solo?" If you say that the player gets eaten by the Purple Worm, and is inside the purple worm, and is moving around inside the purple worm, go back and read it again. While common sense says "Swallowing means I'm inside someone", Swallow is not a keyword. It's not defined by the rules in any fashion. As an evil Gamemaster, I am allowed to ignore it, because it doesn't have any rules. In fact, by the definition of the Restrained Status, I very specifically can't move that figure that got hit by the swallow attack. I now move the purple worm under the battlemat it's full burrow movement. "Uhh... first of all, stuck on the surface or not, the Purple Worm could burrow away and kill any PC I so desire... If I did that, my PCs would leave, because they aren't stupid, like any other PC. Barring that... Umm... you're saying that the word 'swallow' doesn't matter? Then neither does the word 'a', or 'the' or any of the words used to DEFINE THE KEY WORDS!!! If you are really that stupid, you (the general 'you', I feel the need to iterate because people will most often be oversensitive before they will be smart or logical) can't (not shouldn't, CAN'T) DM. Not in any true sense of the title, though I guess titles are words, so they don't matter, period." Better wording helps both players and gamemasters avoid situations just like the one I outlined. It's not about common sense and logic. Common sense to one person does not equal common sense to another. Precise, Fair, and well worded rules, without omissions for things that are assumed by 'common sense' create a better play environment that doesn't rely on referee judgment. What you think happens in your game might mean something different in someone else's game, and if the wording of rules, or specifically the lack of use of common terms for words and vague rules for unusual situations creates an even further gap. "Please... WotC DO NOT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE! If you are to lower yourself to the point where you must describe to me what swallowing means, I will stop defending you, I know that doesn't mean much, but I hope that thousands of gamers rise up against that insult. I believe very strongly in the idiocy of the human race, but that depresses EVEN ME, if that kind of clarification is needed." |
| #20ryukatanaSep 22, 2008 22:23:52 | "Oh, I must also say... any respect I had for your semi-rational form of speech, is gone... Also not likely to bother you, but I just thought that I'd let you know that I have no intention to waste (key word) my thoughts in argument with you any longer, so please, if you wish to only hear arguments that have bearing on yours, ignore me (as in, with the forum feature 'ignore') or my posts, whichever you wish." |
| #21Kensan_OniSep 23, 2008 9:56:27 | Part of the problem, Ryuka, is you have just had a completely irrational reaction to me, because I'm not insulting your intelligence. I very specifically have said you are a nice person, and you don't do these kinds of things that I am talking about. You have taken everything I have talked about on a deep and personal level, when I wasn't even talking about you. That's the whole problem with your replies, is you think I am assaulting you in some way, or that people don't play, or think the way I'm demonstrating. That by explaining how really retentive people see the rules, you feel that it's unrealisitic and moranic and that I am as well. Which is an insult to me, to be honest. I am presenting you with a point of view of how people PLAY this game. If you think it's silly and insulting that people play the game this way, then I am sorry you are insulted. If you think it's completely unreasonable that anyone can play a game this way, I'd like to invite you to a game at the Warhouse in Long Beach sometime. I assure you, they're even more backstabbing, moronic there then I can even convey to you in this forum. Dont' disregard the arguement because you feel it's stupid. It's because it is that stupid that the points need to be clearer. |
| #22Kensan_OniSep 23, 2008 10:08:49 | I also use the Purple Worm example, because, quite frankly, it's less talked about and therefore less house ruled and updated. I could have talked about Blade Cascade, or the Implements on the Spellscared, but quite frankly, they're not nearly as exciting, or help bring my point home nearly as well. We also haven't brought up the scenario where the Purple Worm eats the player, is placed inside the worm, and the DM goes to move the worm, and the player turns around and tells the DM, no it can't. I'm restrained. I'm inside the monster. The rules don't tell you that the monster can move with me, so it has to stay there, because I can't be moved. Again, it's moronic, but these kind of things happen in game. You can say DM Fiat, but if the rules were clearer, you wouldn't have that kind of discussion. |
| #23doctorhookSep 23, 2008 11:55:04 | "Oh, I must also say... any respect I had for your semi-rational form of speech, is gone... Also not likely to bother you, but I just thought that I'd let you know that I have no intention to waste (key word) my thoughts in argument with you any longer, so please, if you wish to only hear arguments that have bearing on yours, ignore me (as in, with the forum feature 'ignore') or my posts, whichever you wish." You have taken a reasonable thread, and made it silly. |
| #24eldritch_lordSep 23, 2008 14:04:07 | To revisit a prior point:"The issue I think most people are having, is refusing to make a judgment call, which WotC is expecting DMs to make. Either logic trumps rules, or the game mechanics trump logic... Like in the case mentioned before about tripping Gelatinous Cubes (again with the cubes... I hate cubes, but I almost got eaten by Jello in a previous campaign, so I'm a little bitter). In my games, logic trumps rules, fun trumps logic... Like rock paper scissors, if the scissors were dull (since rules don't trump fun)." I'm a DM. Let's say I make a ruling on the gelatinous cube problem, or the purple worm problem. To generalize, let's say I houserule issue X. Fine and dandy; the game moves on. Fast-forward a few weeks. Joe Player in one of my games is playing with another DM. Issue X comes up, and that DM rules differently on issue X. Okay, fine. Joe Player doesn't really like that ruling, but the DM is God, so he shuts up and plays. Fast-forward a few weeks. Joe Player is playing with someone else. Issue X comes up, and that DM rules differently yet again on issue X. Great! Joe Player really likes that ruling. Fast-forward a few weeks. Joe Player is playing with me again. He mentions that DM 3 rules Issue X this way instead of that way, and why don't I do it like him? I say I prefer it my way. He says it's too close to DM 2's way, which he doesn't like; I say hey, that's a great idea! I'll do it that way. Joe Player is disappointed, and doesn't like the ruling, but he shuts up and plays because I am God right now. He wants to avoid situations where issue X comes up, and is unhappy whenever they do. Now let's change the scenario. Joe Player has been playing with another DM for a few years and knows 4e backwards and forwards. He has a few pages of houserules for the tricky situations, and he's used to them and has them ingrained in his rules knowledge. He comes to my table and finds that I rule the opposite on half of those issues and the same on the other half. Now he's confused; he's used to thinking of them as RAW, and now they're different. Let's change the scenario again. Issue X is clearly written and clearly explained in the books. Issue X comes up, I point to the book--"That's the way it is. Says so here."--and it's done. Better yet, every other DM would play it the same way, and he doesn't have to remember a houserule because it's right in the book to begin with. Repeat for any issue you want. Refusing to make a judgment call isn't the primary problem. With rules ambiguities, chances are X DMs will give you X different answers. Inconsistency is the problem, on the book's part and on different DMs'. |
| #25Kensan_OniSep 23, 2008 14:30:00 | Thank you Elderitch Lord. I probably would have gotten to that, but I probably wouldn't have put it as elequently. |
| #26ryukatanaSep 23, 2008 14:48:28 | Part of the problem, Ryuka, is you have just had a completely irrational reaction to me, because I'm not insulting your intelligence. I very specifically have said you are a nice person, and you don't do these kinds of things that I am talking about. "I'll give you this one more thing... I didn't say I WAS insulted, only that I would be insulted if Wizards were to follow your advise. By the way, people that play like that, will play like that regardless of the rules, because stupidity reigns supreme for people who aren't willing to use logic. I also never said you were stupid, only that I very STRONGLY disagreed with your argument, because I don't pander to idiots, ever. I don't think anyone should, instead of lowering the standards of the game, we should up our standards of people. Mind you, for a game that's not as serious a claim, but it applies to government, school, and life in general." I also use the Purple Worm example, because, quite frankly, it's less talked about and therefore less house ruled and updated. I could have talked about Blade Cascade, or the Implements on the Spellscared, but quite frankly, they're not nearly as exciting, or help bring my point home nearly as well. "Blade Cascade, read the errata... done... Implements on Spellscarred... really? You don't get it? It's a class that can NEVER be a base class, is that even A LITTLE hard to understand? If so, I'm saddened for whomever is having that kind of trouble understanding. As for the OTHER Purple Worm thing, restrained is a different status effect than grabbed, you see, Wizards DID watch for that..." "You did refute my argument intelligently, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and replying in kind. I specified that my argument was aimed at those that CAN'T wrap their mind around it, and that you are just someone defending them. If you jump in the way of the bullet, not my problem." I'm a DM. Let's say I make a ruling on the gelatinous cube problem, or the purple worm problem... "WHAT... PROBLEM?!" "As for the rest of it... Well, let me be the first to say 'boo hoo Joe Player'... Every EVERY EVERY EVERY game I have ever played in has house rules. EVERY game I have ever run has had house rules, and EVERYONE I played with either learned that DM rules (unless the PCs as a majority refute, if the DM has a problem with that, then they leave) or they leave. If I dislike a DMs house rules... Why would I play in his game? It's clearly going to be less than enjoyable for me, because a DM will make house rules which reflect his DMing style. Who wants to play with a DM whose house rules clearly show that his/her DMing style doesn't suit them? I mean, in 3.5, where were a lot of 'Core Rules' only campaigns. If you wanted a breadth of options, would you play a game with that house rule (which it is a house rule...)? No. And with 5-8 people playing the same game, you have to realize that sometimes, you aren't going to get it your way... Be mature about it..." |
| #27eldritch_lordSep 23, 2008 18:19:28 | "WHAT... PROBLEM?!" I'm using it in the sense of a math "problem." Issue, obstacle, point of debate, difficulty...pick a synonym. You have an expert grasp of the English language, don't you? "As for the rest of it... Well, let me be the first to say 'boo hoo Joe Player'... Every EVERY EVERY EVERY game I have ever played in has house rules. EVERY game I have ever run has had house rules, and EVERYONE I played with either learned that DM rules (unless the PCs as a majority refute, if the DM has a problem with that, then they leave) or they leave. If I dislike a DMs house rules... Why would I play in his game? It's clearly going to be less than enjoyable for me, because a DM will make house rules which reflect his DMing style. Who wants to play with a DM whose house rules clearly show that his/her DMing style doesn't suit them? I mean, in 3.5, where were a lot of 'Core Rules' only campaigns. If you wanted a breadth of options, would you play a game with that house rule (which it is a house rule...)? No. And with 5-8 people playing the same game, you have to realize that sometimes, you aren't going to get it your way... Be mature about it..." Guess what? Every EVERY EVERY EVERY game I have ever played in has had house rules and EVERY game I have ever run has had house rules, and EVERYONE I played with learned that the DM rules as well. The difference was that when I ran those games, I made a conscious decision: "Here's the way it works now; here's my issue with it; here's what I want it to be like; voila, house rule." In this case, you can't do that. You can't get past "Step 1: Here's the way it works now" because there isn't a clear-cut explanation of how it is supposed to work, and sometimes not even how it is intended to work (which isn't the same; see RAW vs. RAI debates). I house rule all the time; I've made new races, new classes, new magic systems, and new rules of every other sort. I can't say "I don't like Vancian casting; I think I'll make something else" if I don't know what Vancian casting is due to poor explanation and/or editing. Your analogies fall flat, as well. In 3e there were many Core-only games, true. Using only that criterion, you can determine a lot about a game, and decide whether or not you want to play in it. Going Core-only is a choice made before starting, however. Mid-stream houserules of the sort we are discussing are not, their outcome(s) cannot be anticipated, and they may or may not be to players' liking. In short, you are comparing deliberate, premeditated houserules based on a preexisting foundation with on-the-fly, completely subjective rules interpretations. The former are a part of every D&D game and usually a good addition; the latter are a result of sloppy design and/or editing work and should be excised. |
| #28Kensan_OniSep 23, 2008 20:06:34 | "Blade Cascade, read the errata... done... Implements on Spellscarred... really? You don't get it? It's a class that can NEVER be a base class, is that even A LITTLE hard to understand? If so, I'm saddened for whomever is having that kind of trouble understanding. As for the OTHER Purple Worm thing, restrained is a different status effect than grabbed, you see, Wizards DID watch for that..." Okay, then you can point this out in the rules then, because this ia very valid and unanswered question. Can you use a holy symbol with the arcane power group? Site me a page and paragraph of the source, please. A holy symbol is generally considered to be a divine implement. It might not be able to work. It might be allowed. We don't know, and in relation to Spellscars, it's very important. Guaranteed for every DM that says yes, there is another that says no, and another one that says you can't use any implement because it's not covered by the rules. Oh, and while we're at it, which implement is a Fighter allowed to use? I have a use for Lines in the Burning Sand. It's important to know when I take the paragon path later, also. And so you agree with the player who says if he gets eaten by a worm, that worm can't move? I just want to be clear on that, because, you know, that doesn't make much sense, either. |
| #29thaxSep 23, 2008 22:10:32 | This sort of thing was why 3.5 came out so soon after the release of the new 3rd edition. It is why 4.5 will happen down the road. |
| #30ryukatanaSep 24, 2008 9:59:49 | I'm using it in the sense of a math "problem." Issue, obstacle, point of debate, difficulty...pick a synonym. You have an expert grasp of the English language, don't you? "Uhh... I didn't say, 'What is a problem?' Which would then question my grasp of English... I said, 'WHAT PROBLEM?' As in, I see no need for clarification, because... I dunno, I know what engulfed or swallowed means because I graduated elementary school, have a dictionary, and have at least a 5th grade vocabulary..." Okay, then you can point this out in the rules then, because this ia very valid and unanswered question. Can you use a holy symbol with the arcane power group? Site me a page and paragraph of the source, please. "The Holy Symbol thing would probably be a DM call, insofar as 'logic trumps', but otherwise, it says implement, that's it... Specific beats general, so anything that says it uses 'blah' implement, uses that implement, if not, then it's general, and just uses 'implements' period... That's the CORE rule of DnD..." And so you agree with the player who says if he gets eaten by a worm, that worm can't move? I just want to be clear on that, because, you know, that doesn't make much sense, either. "No... Does restrained say anything about that... Restrained is NOT grab... If you can't figure that out, your DnD game is doomed, because you're frankly not smart enough to play DnD if you don't understand what swallowed means." |
| #31StevemanSep 24, 2008 11:08:39 | Wow, you are writing pages of clarification to defend your point in that some of the rules don't need clarification... Yeah, you should just stop now. |
| #32eldritch_lordSep 24, 2008 16:13:45 | "Uhh... I didn't say, 'What is a problem?' Which would then question my grasp of English... I said, 'WHAT PROBLEM?' As in, I see no need for clarification, because... I dunno, I know what engulfed or swallowed means because I graduated elementary school, have a dictionary, and have at least a 5th grade vocabulary..." When you ask "What problem!?" it means you think I have a problem with the way a given rule works. I was clarifying that I do not have a problem with the gelatinous cube ruling in particular, only that it is an issue under discussion--thus, clarifying that I was using it in the sense of a math "problem" (i.e., something that is to be resolved in some way) not as a personal "problem" (i.e., a rules issue that I actually dislike/have had to rule on/have had difficulty with). Your insistence that there is no problem simply because you can understand the literal meaning of the word(s) in question is getting a bit old, particularly without a citation of any kind. Coming from someone who has to expound for pages and pages on why you don't have to expound for pages and pages about the rules--not to mention someone who believes caps lock is a "cruise control for cool"--is getting to be a bit irritating. Touting your 5th grade vocabulary only works if your opponents lack that, which in this instance is manifestly not the case. |
| #33ryukatanaSep 25, 2008 2:02:01 | "Oh, I was misled by the fact that swallow and engulf bewilder you so profoundly. I have actually, and will admit because I think treating stupidity with stupidity is perfectly valid, not been clarifying... I have been stating, I honestly believe myself to be redundant here. As for the 'caps lock' comment, I am simply typing as I would speak. So where I would punctuate or literally yell, I type in caps, so you understand my inflection is one of unimaginable befuddlement (to the point of great annoyance) at how infuriatingly asinine the general human race is... To the point where I wake up some days and want to scream expletives at the ceiling because I'm still on Earth." "I don't believe in pandering to that level of obtuseness... If you don't get it, figure it out, look it up, do anything else, but do not lower the standards of the entire human race because you choose ignorance. Once again, the general you, if any of you are offended, you can believe that I called you stupid, but trust me, the reason is much more deep-seated." For those that do not understand the words 'swallow' and 'engulf', you may need this to get through that rant. |
| #34eldritch_lordSep 25, 2008 15:20:32 | "Oh, I was misled by the fact that swallow and engulf bewilder you so profoundly. I have actually, and will admit because I think treating stupidity with stupidity is perfectly valid, not been clarifying... I have been stating, I honestly believe myself to be redundant here. Once again: I personally have no problem with the gelatinous cube issue. I am concerned with the fact that there are issues like this in the books, not with that one in particular. I never said I have a problem with it; I used it as an example, and you drew an incorrect conclusion. As for the 'caps lock' comment, I am simply typing as I would speak. So where I would punctuate or literally yell, I type in caps, so you understand my inflection is one of unimaginable befuddlement (to the point of great annoyance) at how infuriatingly asinine the general human race is... To the point where I wake up some days and want to scream expletives at the ceiling because I'm still on Earth." Some people use italics to emphasize their speech; if you absolutely have to, you can use bolding. IF YOU USE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, IT IS CONSIDERED VERY RUDE, regardless of your opinion of those reading your posts. "I don't believe in pandering to that level of obtuseness... If you don't get it, figure it out, look it up, do anything else, but do not lower the standards of the entire human race because you choose ignorance. Once again, the general you, if any of you are offended, you can believe that I called you stupid, but trust me, the reason is much more deep-seated." I understand these issues. You understand these issues. I know you do, you know I do. I'm not concerned about us. I'm concerned about the groups with inexperienced players, the DMs who don't understand game balance all too well yet, the ones picking up the game for the first time, and the like--the groups whose players would be confused by a vague rule and whose DMs can't houserule their way out of a paper bag. |
| #35ryukatanaSep 26, 2008 3:44:51 | "You (E_L) are treating this as if I was only speaking to you... I was not... For those that are bothered by my caps, I simply say, get over it. I don't care what YOU (general you) think my caps mean. You make a foolish assumption, that's your problem." "Nonetheless, I see no issue... Period. DnD has always had a steep learning curve, new groups will always have issues, and I see nothing ambiguous or unclear about the wording of anything you guys mentioned. Before you repeat that I have 'expounded for pages', I did so for the same reason I would with an 8-year-old, a belief that reading comprehension is lacking." |