seebs posted:

I disagree with lots of rulings. I don't care enough to reach the level of "can't live with it".

quote:

Well, given how many more words are put into it in, say, PF, or 4e... and we still have the same stupid arguments... I am not sure that making everything "clear" really changes it that much.

AlphaDog posted:

Are you saying that "A fireball originates in one grid square and occupies these squares <diagram>" and "I dunno, draw a circle on the grid or make a pixellated circle out of grid squares or a cross shape or something, do whatever" are equivalent because people will argue about it anyway, but you don't argue about it because the game's more fun when you don't argue, so that's ok just don't argue?

A Catastrophe posted:

Did you read what I posted? Or what you posted? you're the one who used the term 'can't live with the ruling'.

My point being, that if you can't possibly imagine somebody not being able to live with a ruling, than, as noted in your previous post I quoted, you don't really have any solution to a real disagreement at the table.

quote:

And even if the volume of argument was the same, we aren't wasting time arguing on whether the Wizard can reach around the statue to zap the goblin, and are instead moving on to more substantial matters, matters which can actually be resolved.

seebs posted:

Pretty much, yeah. If someone genuinely can't accept a ruling at all, and there's no one who can compromise, then that's an incompatible gaming group.

quote:

Huh. I guess you have very different gaming experiences. In which case, 4e is probably a decent choice among the D&Ds.

seebs posted:

Pretty much, yeah. If someone genuinely can't accept a ruling at all, and there's no one who can compromise, then that's an incompatible gaming group.

seebs posted:

Well, say you have all this nice clear language, with formal definitions like "emanation" and "spread".

Now look at, say, wreath of blades.

With these nice clear rules, wreath of blades clearly also damages the caster, because it's an emanation and emanations include their origin.

With rules that were somewhat less clear, we might not have to overrule that.

Adding more text does not necessarily result in fewer confusions, even if it's really good text.

seebs posted:

Well, say you have all this nice clear language, with formal definitions like "emanation" and "spread".

Now look at, say, wreath of blades.

With these nice clear rules, wreath of blades clearly also damages the caster, because it's an emanation and emanations include their origin.

With rules that were somewhat less clear, we might not have to overrule that.

Adding more text does not necessarily result in fewer confusions, even if it's really good text.

seebs posted:

I guess you have very different gaming experiences. In which case, 4e is probably a decent choice among the D&Ds.

ritorix posted:

That won't save anyone. 4e had plenty of arguments too. Things were clearly defined, sure, but the arguments there were over rules minutiae and the definition of 'target' as it applies to a specific feat or whatever. And in 4e, according to paragraph 5 of page 57 of the Rules Compendium (errata #3), there would be proof that someone was right. But god help the table that descends into that poo poo when they are supposed to be having a good time.

A Catastrophe posted:

Name one actual example of this happening in the 4e rules. To clarify, i'm not saying it can't happen, but I very much doubt you can come up with any evidence of your claim.

A Catastrophe posted:

Name one actual example of this happening in the 4e rules. To clarify, i'm not saying it can't happen, but I very much doubt you can come up with any evidence of your claim.

quote:

Area: 5-foot-radius emanation centered on you

The daggers serving as focus of this spell take on a deadly sharpness as they animate and spin around you, creating a 5-foot-radius emanation of spinning mithral blades that moves with you. Any creature that starts its turn within the area of the spinning blades takes 1d4 points of damage for every two caster levels (maximum 10d4 at 20th level) and the damage bypasses DR/silver.

Furthermore,

quote:

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. a burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

ritorix posted:

And you seem like exactly the sort of person that would do that sort of thing.

Effectronica posted:

Surely you can remember the lengthy arguments over whether you counted as your own ally.

A Catastrophe posted:

You have no idea how wrong you are. I have players IMC who make me look passive by comparison. I am not into some no holds barred rules lawyer fest. I am into the opposite, but the REAL opposite, not the myth of nobody arguing because some dude says it's worked on his table since spring of eighteen-diddly-six.

I want rules that can pull their weight, and i'm sick of people making excuses for crappy developers who can't do their job. We're not asking for perfection, but we're not going to accept this obviously false myth about how 4e has as many arguments as Pathfinder and 5e, when it's leaking contradictions all over the place.
Don't help him! I'm making a point here.

There's a lot of claims made in these debates, but a lot of the people making them don't know what they're talking about.

Anyway, that poo poo is old news. The new hotness is for people to argue over whether they can declare their enemy as an ally.

Effectronica posted:

Of course, this speaks to the clarity of 4e's basic language that it's shifted from definitions to whether you can force things to meet those definitions.

A Catastrophe posted:

It at least gives a clearer basis for a ruling, which if people were really into 'gm makes the call' style play, they would support. The more lucid the system, the better the rulings you can make with it, and the more clearly, and quickly, people can know where they stand.

Jimbozig posted:

So a gaming group could be totally compatible if the rules were actually written instead of being transmitted through design-intent induction to the DM's brain. But because the lack of rules lead to serious disputes, that's an incompatible group?

Incompatible with the game in question, maybe. I know from board games that the same group that will happily play one game will argue visciously over another.

Effectronica posted:

Surely you can remember the lengthy arguments over whether you counted as your own ally.

quote:

When a power's target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power's effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, "ally" or "allies" does not include you

ritorix posted:

arguing that it didnt have arguments

eth0.n posted:

Page 57 of an original printing 4E PHB:


Now, I do remember those debates. As a designer, you can't eliminate rules debates. There will always be people who miss or misread something. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make the rules as clear and concise as possible. The point is to reduce the quantity and severity of arguments at the table, not eliminate them entirely.

A Catastrophe posted:

Nobody's saying that it didn't have arguments.

A Catastrophe posted:

Name one actual example of this happening in the 4e rules.

ProfessorCirno posted:

A lot of it comes from 3e's particular brand of rule lawyering that fetishizes "RAW" in order to "trick" the game or DM into allowing what would otherwise be stupid and nonsensical, trying to find loopholes and the like. The problem with 5e isn't that the written rules differ from how they were intended, the problem is that the written rules don't actually answer things.

ritorix posted:

A Catastrophe posted:

Name one actual example of this happening in the 4e rules. To clarify, i'm not saying it can't happen, but I very much doubt you can come up with any evidence of your claim.

Rhjamiz posted:

Nowhere is this more evident than various CharOp boards and Class Handbooks. More than once, because I am bad a 3.5, I'd consult some handbook and it would suggest something that sounded cool but upon consulting Piell or actually reading the feats it was very obvious that the rules didn't allow said trick at all, and instead relied on a very strange, specific interpretation to ever function. I wish I could remember some examples.

A Catastrophe posted:

It's a perfect example because clarifying it in the book would be so trivial, and the only reason not to is because it would shatter the innocence of some hothouse flower grog who will immediately be Fired As A Player if the book says elves sleep a way contrary to the way he thinks Garry said they do.

dwarf74 posted:

Now, quick! Which of these spells are reactions or bonus actions?

AlphaDog posted:

Are you saying that "A fireball originates in one grid square and occupies these squares <diagram>" and "I dunno, draw a circle on the grid or make a pixellated circle out of grid squares or a cross shape or something, do whatever" are equivalent because people will argue about it anyway, but you don't argue about it because the game's more fun when you don't argue, so that's ok just don't argue?

A Catastrophe posted:

You quoted it in full, yourself.
On the same page.
Is this your first rodeo, homeboy?

MonsterEnvy posted:

This does not matter cause they will cover the same amount of squares anyway.

Mendrian posted:

Come on man, neither one of us can possibly know this. I get where you're coming from and agree that the flaws run deeper than many other systems but let's not project motivation onto a thing that some poor writer probably thought was cool and clear enough.

AlphaDog posted:

Will it be the same squares?

What if I drew a circle from the origin square with a compass, still the same squares?

Is it really easier for each group to have this discussion than to have a clearly written rule in the rulebook?

eth0.n posted:

I do love how they made a big deal about how bad minor actions were, and they didn't want to include them.

Then they introduce bonus actions, which are functionally exactly identical to minor actions, just more obfuscated and cumbersome.

dwarf74 posted:

Oh also!

Check the Mage.

Look at his spell list.

Now, quick! Which of these spells are reactions or bonus actions?

dwarf74 posted:

Doubly obfuscated, because gently caress if they even tell you anywhere in the monster stat block

AlphaDog posted:

Will it be the same squares?

What if I drew a circle from the origin square with a compass, still the same squares?

Is it really easier for each group to have this discussion than to have a clearly written rule in the rulebook?