Return to Answer

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

Which I guess is "3. Something else..."

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for every little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find. (@BaconBits)

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned on and off among our contributors in the past 5 years. (OK, I just noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

Which I guess is "3. Something else..."

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for every little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find. (@BaconBits)

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned on and off among our contributors in the past 5 years. (OK, I just noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e

Or, do as Pierre suggests in his answer: place a bounty on it if you'd like to see it improved, or see an improved answer.

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

Which I guess is "3. Something else..."

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for evey little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find. (@BaconBits)

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned off and one among our contributers in the past 5 years. (OK, I justed noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

Which I guess is "3. Something else..."

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for every little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find. (@BaconBits)

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned on and off among our contributors in the past 5 years. (OK, I just noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for evey little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned off and one among our contributers in the past 5 years. (OK, I justed noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e

Recommendation: leave it alone unless it's plain wrong

Which I guess is "3. Something else..."

I made the comment last week as I had the same reaction that you did: I'd like to see a bit more meat on the bone. I am pretty sure we won't see Waxy back for a while (which makes me very sad) but I'd like to put that answer into some context.

It was a challenge for some people, as play testers and players got used to D&DNext/5e, to recalibrate their expectations about the DM's ruling being an intended feature of this edition, and that players and DM's did not have to chase down a rule for evey little detail. Answers like WaxEagle's were a breath of fresh air (for some of us). The long and short of it is; make a ruling, there isn't a rule for that. If you look at the answer to one of my early questions you'll see that point made as part of an answer.

Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find. (@BaconBits)

That philosophical approach, and the advocacy of it, has waxed and waned off and one among our contributers in the past 5 years. (OK, I justed noted that pun. I'm leaving it there).

Unless the answer is flat out wrong, I see no point in taking any action.

"The DM needs to make a ruling" is Not an opinion based answer for D&D 5e