Obviously there are occasions in which two people read an ability or something and interpret it differently than someone else. This makes it awkward for the person doing the ability which ends up looking silly, and even more odd since technically their character would have known that wouldn't have worked but player actually thought it would based on their own reading of the ability, the GM usually won't let the player backup that action, though especially true if the player really didn't read the ability at all.
But this brings us to a more interesting situation. What happens when the Dm's and players, PHB is what actually differs. The player takes an action that according to his character sheet, and the ability when he got it from his PHB works exactly as he intends to attempt to do, but low and behold the DM says he can't because the ability doesn't do that, and looks at the player like he should have read the ability before trying it.
I'm just curious if this has ever come up in your games and how you have handled the situation. Personally I think that is when it would be beneficial to go with either what the DM has as he is the one has to make the rules work, or the majority of players marking down changes as they are found. And certainly if ruled against the PC he should be allowed to alter his action. (though maybe in this case, allowed to continue it at least this once so as to not penalize him for actions he may have not taken that encounter knowing he couldn't do it.)
As far as I know, changes between printings are quite minor. My suggestion is checking the last update of the errata and consult with the DM, if need be.
But my thought is that the last word is DM's, unless the player has irrefutable proofs.
Usually I thought they were. Though apparently the requirement for sleep or the lack of such a requirement during a Long Rest would seem to be quite major in my opinion as it entirely determines whether you gain the benefits for a long rest while remaining entirely awake.
I handle changes in printings the same way I handle any other rule, or disagreement about the meaning of the rule;
I read it. I consider the implications of the rule, and decide whether I do or do not like them. I then discuss with my players the rule, the way the book suggests it be handled, and any other idea I have about how it should be handled. Then they give me any ideas they have about how it should be handled, and we come to a consensus about how to handle it.
In general, that means we only end up going with the changed version of rules that result from more recent printings in cases where the change to the rules actually improves our game-play experience, which is a rare occurrence given that we've likely already house-ruled things if they didn't fit our preference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Obviously there are occasions in which two people read an ability or something and interpret it differently than someone else. This makes it awkward for the person doing the ability which ends up looking silly, and even more odd since technically their character would have known that wouldn't have worked but player actually thought it would based on their own reading of the ability, the GM usually won't let the player backup that action, though especially true if the player really didn't read the ability at all.
But this brings us to a more interesting situation. What happens when the Dm's and players, PHB is what actually differs. The player takes an action that according to his character sheet, and the ability when he got it from his PHB works exactly as he intends to attempt to do, but low and behold the DM says he can't because the ability doesn't do that, and looks at the player like he should have read the ability before trying it.
I'm just curious if this has ever come up in your games and how you have handled the situation. Personally I think that is when it would be beneficial to go with either what the DM has as he is the one has to make the rules work, or the majority of players marking down changes as they are found. And certainly if ruled against the PC he should be allowed to alter his action. (though maybe in this case, allowed to continue it at least this once so as to not penalize him for actions he may have not taken that encounter knowing he couldn't do it.)
As far as I know, changes between printings are quite minor. My suggestion is checking the last update of the errata and consult with the DM, if need be.
But my thought is that the last word is DM's, unless the player has irrefutable proofs.
Usually I thought they were. Though apparently the requirement for sleep or the lack of such a requirement during a Long Rest would seem to be quite major in my opinion as it entirely determines whether you gain the benefits for a long rest while remaining entirely awake.
I handle changes in printings the same way I handle any other rule, or disagreement about the meaning of the rule;
I read it. I consider the implications of the rule, and decide whether I do or do not like them. I then discuss with my players the rule, the way the book suggests it be handled, and any other idea I have about how it should be handled. Then they give me any ideas they have about how it should be handled, and we come to a consensus about how to handle it.
In general, that means we only end up going with the changed version of rules that result from more recent printings in cases where the change to the rules actually improves our game-play experience, which is a rare occurrence given that we've likely already house-ruled things if they didn't fit our preference.