How do y'all feel about spell interpretations made by the DM based on the rules? Spell currently under debate is 'identify' which I say consumes the pearl with 100gp and the feather once cast. How do people feel about that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sometimes a Nat 1 tells a better story than a Nat 20 ever could.
How do y'all feel about spell interpretations made by the DM based on the rules? Spell currently under debate is 'identify' which I say consumes the pearl with 100gp and the feather once cast. How do people feel about that?
The only time components are consumed is when it says they are consumed. But, as the DM it is perfectly fine for you to say that the pearl is consumed if you want the identify spell to be used sparingly.
I feel fine with a DM interpreting anything that is unclear in its wording, or that isn't specifically covered by the rules, however they wish - though I have a preference for the DM deciding on any interpretations as a group with the players' input, since that's how I do things as a DM.
What I'm not fine with is if I sit down to play at someone's table and they are contradictory to things written clearly in the book without having a reasoning for it that isn't some form of 'I really had no idea because I didn't actually read this version of the rules' or 'I'm ignoring all of the deliberate changes to the rules made by this edition because the older edition I am used to did things just fine' - because I dislike my expectations not matching what I am delivered, such as being invited to play 5th edition and the DM 'interpreting' the rules as not being different from 3rd edition.
What I'm not fine with is if I sit down to play at someone's table and they are contradictory to things written clearly in the book without having a reasoning for it that isn't some form of 'I really had no idea because I didn't actually read this version of the rules' or 'I'm ignoring all of the deliberate changes to the rules made by this edition because the older edition I am used to did things just fine' - because I dislike my expectations not matching what I am delivered, such as being invited to play 5th edition and the DM 'interpreting' the rules as not being different from 3rd edition.
You've had that, too, huh? Also, adding homebrew rules that really change things, but not warning players of that beforehand. Or 'special' rules for certain players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do y'all feel about spell interpretations made by the DM based on the rules? Spell currently under debate is 'identify' which I say consumes the pearl with 100gp and the feather once cast. How do people feel about that?
Sometimes a Nat 1 tells a better story than a Nat 20 ever could.
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
I feel fine with a DM interpreting anything that is unclear in its wording, or that isn't specifically covered by the rules, however they wish - though I have a preference for the DM deciding on any interpretations as a group with the players' input, since that's how I do things as a DM.
What I'm not fine with is if I sit down to play at someone's table and they are contradictory to things written clearly in the book without having a reasoning for it that isn't some form of 'I really had no idea because I didn't actually read this version of the rules' or 'I'm ignoring all of the deliberate changes to the rules made by this edition because the older edition I am used to did things just fine' - because I dislike my expectations not matching what I am delivered, such as being invited to play 5th edition and the DM 'interpreting' the rules as not being different from 3rd edition.