Maybe this is a communication issue, but you are not in the right place for what you want to discuss.
I understand the rule of cool. It's sentiment is "is this scene better if we ignore the rules?" Mechanical munchkinism is never an application of the rule of cool because one player overshadowing the rest of the game with their excessive character power ruins the scene for other players.
Did I say that fun is subjective? I take all points into consideration. Still, I'm not convinced. I started this forum to be convinced. No one should be mad at simply failing to do so. I understand it's hard because we're all sentimental creatures in our own right and I'm trying to read between the lines of what everyone is saying. I'm just getting the hint that some people aren't as open-minded as I would like, but that's okay. I learn from peoples' stubborness, as well as myself being stubborn at times. D&D makes one feel like they've got to be a sociology major or something. Otherwise, we're just reacting to each others' pride. All the players I've had teach me new ways of looking at things. Some of these things the PHB could never teach you. The true core and basis of understanding D&D is experience and no book can account for that. The ambiguity was not dismissed by anyone because no one is able to find in the PHB the premise for which Thirsting Blade should override the use of a cantrip that doesn't use the pact weapon. Players may feel cheated by being restricted with either/or. I know if I was a player, I would be delighted with the option. I was looking for the PHB justifying the ruling. I believe the true ambiguity lies with the interpretation of the premise of why such a rule should exist when a bladesinging wizard's extra attack can involve the use of a cantrip without the use of the pact weapon. I just wanted to know why my argument should be refuted. Again, to everyone, sorry for the heavy contention, but it is necessary.
I've already taken that into account, but it's not guaranteed to rob other players of fun. That's why a DM needs to discuss things with their players and find out what they're cool with. Again, my core rule: everyone needs to have fun. I already know that what's fun for one person may not be fun for someone else.
Maybe this is a communication issue, but you are not in the right place for what you want to discuss.
I understand the rule of cool. It's sentiment is "is this scene better if we ignore the rules?" Mechanical munchkinism is never an application of the rule of cool because one player overshadowing the rest of the game with their excessive character power ruins the scene for other players.
Did I say that fun is subjective? I take all points into consideration. Still, I'm not convinced. I started this forum to be convinced. No one should be mad at simply failing to do so. I understand it's hard because we're all sentimental creatures in our own right and I'm trying to read between the lines of what everyone is saying. I'm just getting the hint that some people aren't as open-minded as I would like, but that's okay. I learn from peoples' stubborness, as well as myself being stubborn at times. D&D makes one feel like they've got to be a sociology major or something. Otherwise, we're just reacting to each others' pride. All the players I've had teach me new ways of looking at things. Some of these things the PHB could never teach you. The true core and basis of understanding D&D is experience and no book can account for that. The ambiguity was not dismissed by anyone because no one is able to find in the PHB the premise for which Thirsting Blade should override the use of a cantrip that doesn't use the pact weapon. Players may feel cheated by being restricted with either/or. I know if I was a player, I would be delighted with the option. I was looking for the PHB justifying the ruling. I believe the true ambiguity lies with the interpretation of the premise of why such a rule should exist when a bladesinging wizard's extra attack can involve the use of a cantrip without the use of the pact weapon. I just wanted to know why my argument should be refuted. Again, to everyone, sorry for the heavy contention, but it is necessary.
I've already taken that into account, but it's not guaranteed to rob other players of fun. That's why a DM needs to discuss things with their players and find out what they're cool with. Again, my core rule: everyone needs to have fun. I already know that what's fun for one person may not be fun for someone else.
Sorry everyone, I did not know I started a debate in the wrong forum. No wonder why I was heavily contended with. Still feeling the sting. My bad.
Thank you. If I had been in the correct forum, I'm sure I would have illicited the proper response. So sorry. I didn't mean to offend everyone.