Very late response since I travelled to an old thread but an eldritch invocation that is mandatory for hexblades makes your pact weapon have +1 on all damage and weapon rolls (on top of making it your arcane focus and broadening the options of your pact weapons) but yes otherwise you are correct.
I'm also very late to this topic as well and I definitely don't want to make waves on the specifics of what has already been talked about regarding the wording of this Shadow Blade spell itself or any of the nuisances that have already been discussed about how the spell interacts in conjunction to any of the Hexblade abilities or for any other class ability for that matter. But my goal here is more of a general chat in hopes that you possibly take to heart some of what I am about to say below. Please understand that these rules we read and use were always meant to be fluid and do not always need to be codified with an exact answer or purpose. This is regardless of whether you've been a DM or player for however long you're claiming to be an expert on some of these rules.
The bottom line is, that D&D is a game! Lighten up your reigns on the rules! What one person interprets as fun doesn't need to be dissected to the point of making it to be read as your way or the highway for a ruling. What I do want to point out is that unless you play in a hardcore by the "Rules as Written" Adventure League game that sometimes goes by the "Rules as Intended", then I suggest you talk out those individual rules with your DM's so they can make the ruling of the spell and/or class features in anyway that he or she and you works for your group. After all the whole point of the game is to have fun with friends. If your worried about breaking the game then your DM should make the encounters a little more challenging for those players that want to feel like they want to be a little more powerful. If the DM does allow something, then what's good for you is also good for your adversaries as well, so bear that in mind. Yes we have the Sage Advice and the forums here and folks like Jeremy Crawford or any of the other game creators that may chime in and possibly give us a rule clarification based off of their original intent for what is most often a poorly worded paragraph in one of the books that often times was not written with future books in mind or even read by everyone of the game designers who wrote these books before the product went to print. Please remember that they too are human just like you and me, they get up in the morning and live life just like us, they put there shoes on just like us, really the only difference is they just happen to be the ones helping to develop the books that we admire because that's the job they chose to do. If you think you can do better, then look for a job when they announce them. They are not gods who demand you play the game by their rules, they just helped in the creation of this wonderful RPG that we all like and they hope you like the finished product enough to buy the books, PDF's, or perhaps be a subscriber, so that you can game together for a few hours each week with your friends and enjoy their products. Trust me when I say that they as developers hope that you as Players and DM's alike take these base rules and dream big, adjust the rules as written to your play-style as needed, and then imagine the mechanics that make sense and use those rules which work for you and your gaming group and in turn your adventures. Again, the point of the game is to just have fun! And not be a rules lawyer all the time. Just be flexible, if someone asks for advise on a rule, give your interpretation of the rule that you use at your table, and not the hammer down this is the only way the rule was intended.
OK, so lastly, please do not shoot the messenger on this one either as I know some folks cannot stand to mix different editions of D&D together. So, all I ask is to have a open mind and and have some faith that all of the editions are fun in their own way. Hell, I've played them all over the period of nearly 40 years now and all I can tell you as a DM and Player myself is to have an open mind when gaming! So, I'll throw out this idea for those players that really want to have a Shadow Blade spell work for the Hexblade class features. Ask your DM to take a look into an old D&D 2nd edition magic item called the Ring of Spell Holding. Do your Google research if you do not have the original source for it. The easiest way to find it is to find a print or PDF copy of the Encyclopedia Magica Volume 3 (there are 4 volumes with each book with well over 1000 pages of nothing but magic items in each of them). You can find them on eBay in print and I'm sure or you can probably find them on Drive Thru RPG or maybe even the DM's guild. Anyway without spelling out the item exactly as that would probably be against the WotC rules here. The general gist of this ring is that its usable on cast spells only and the ring has the ability to increase the duration of any spell cast upon the wearer indefinitely until the ring is removed which then releases the spell, additionally the spell effect can be dispelled if targeted. Also voluntarily removing of the ring ends the spell immediately even if it still had possibly time left from it's originally time duration. Only one spell at a time. And it doesn't work on some spells such as the 2nd level invisibility because once you attack the spell is gone as stated. Nor spells that grant a one and done effect like Cure Disease, so you cannot expect to have disease immunity with wearing the ring. The Ring of Spell Holding had an experience cost of 2k and a Gold Piece value of 10k, which in my eyes is relatively low and fairly reasonable item to attain within the first 5-10 levels of play in D&D 5e. Now, I can see some DM's already saying that if they allowed this item that it would be a Legendary tier or even a Artifact tier item to them. To that I say why? Its a game, live a little. Assign it a reasonable rarity appropriately! My guess is that it would be rare item at the minimum and needing attunement and then let the players earn the item and give it to a party member with the caveat that if you do find a spell that is breaking the game with it then we (meaning the DM & Player) re-evaluate if this ring doesn't work with that particular spell in your future games. Give the players the opportunity to have some fun, use the thousands of items out there that do not have the D&D 5e label already on them a chance.
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
The bottom line is, that D&D is a game! Lighten up your reigns on the rules! What one person interprets as fun doesn't need to be dissected to the point of making it to be read as your way or the highway for a ruling.
A few comments.
1) As mentioned this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum - when folks post here they are not asking what they can make up for funsies since obviously a DM can make up whatever they like - they are asking what the rules ARE not what someone might want them to be.
2) You play the game the way you want to play it and everyone else will play it the way they want to play it. Your comments come across as telling folks how they should run their games (rules light, anything goes, overpowered magic items for the funsies) ... and not everyone, either DMs or players, enjoys that playstyle or type of world building.
3) You then go on to discuss some magic item that allows a spell to be maintained indefinitely by a worn magic item apparently without requiring concentration. Huh?
There is no way that would ever make it into a game I was running since it is overpowered in the context of 5e. Consider the cloak of invisibility - has a limited use time, requires an action to activate, requires attunement and is legendary - compare this to a ring of spell holding supporting the greater invisibility spell for a 7th level character. Unlimited duration greater invisibility at no cost to the wearer except an attunement slot AND you can swap the spell effect. An even better spell for a 10th level lore bard would be circle of power - magic resistance to spells and other magical effects in a 30' radius from the caster, unlimited duration. Plus the effect of the magic item makes it harder to dispel :). I'm afraid that your assessment of such a magic item used in a 5e campaign isn't correct even if your goal was to come up with a way to make a shadow blade permanent. The DM might as well just give the player a magic item with the properties of a shadow blade (call it a crystallized shadow blade) and call it a day.
However, if you want to run your game that way then more power to you ... but please don't suggest to others to ask their DMs for crazy overpowered items in other games.
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
They aren't added to damage rolls for two weapon fighting with the shadowblade as the offhand weapon, because of the two weapon fighting rules saying as much:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
They aren't added to damage rolls for two weapon fighting with the shadowblade as the offhand weapon, because of the two weapon fighting rules saying as much:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
where did anyone say something about off-hand use?
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
They aren't added to damage rolls for two weapon fighting with the shadowblade as the offhand weapon, because of the two weapon fighting rules saying as much:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
where did anyone say something about off-hand use?
The conversation has drifted over the years, but the assertion in the OP is that the hexblade is making their first attack with their pact weapon and making a second with the shadow blade.
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
They aren't added to damage rolls for two weapon fighting with the shadowblade as the offhand weapon, because of the two weapon fighting rules saying as much:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
where did anyone say something about off-hand use?
Rules clarification question for a DM who is just learning to manage players!
I have a Level 3 hexblade warlock, with pact of the blade. Currently they want to summon their pact blade AND a shadow blade and dual wield them in combat. As far as I can tell this is totally ok... If i understand the spell right and how the character is built..
- Hex Warrior lets them add their Charisma modifier (+3)
- Pact boon, Pact of the blade - lets them use a longsword (1d8+1)
- Bonus action cast shadow blade
- Next round attack... so
Attack 1 with Pact blade for 1d8+1(weapon) +3 (Charisma)
Attack 2 with shadow blade for 2d8 + 3(Charisma)
Possible hexblades curse +2 (Proficiency)
If i have that right a non-critical hit would max at 12 (First hit) + 19 (second hit) + 2 (hex) = 33 damage in one round at level 3 without a crit?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Good afternoon David42and to any others who may find my post above... a bit lacking or tasteless for the interpreted meaning of this forums heading.
It's already been pointed out that nearly 2 months ago on the 8th of August 2022 that yes indeed this is a "rules and game mechanics" board, not a general forum, by Pantagruel666in the very next forum post for which I made no comment but understood their meaning. So yeah thanks for hammering it home without reading the above statement by him before replying or even for picking apart a few select sentences of my original post without listening to the whole intent of my original post. But again, I already knew that this was a rules and mechanics board before I posted it and regardless I wrote the post anyway to make it very much so as a suggestion. No where in my whole lengthy three paragraphs did I imply that you (or anyone else) must take what I was saying as gospel, I merely made a suggestion. Again, having played every edition of the game for nearly 40 years now, plus many other RPG's, I too realize that DM's/GM's and their players are going to play the game there way regardless of what is said here in this forum or any other forums for that matter by anyone. If I came across as a commanding version of "telling them" (your words above, since you're implying that I was) then I apologize. Perhaps it may have seemed that way to you. But when I was writing those paragraphs, that was not my intention. Also having retired from the military with 25+ years of experience perhaps my writing can come off a little blunt, and not candy fluffed, but again that was not my intent to trigger you or any others in my writing. So again, I apologize.
As far the magic item recommendation of the Ring of Spell Holding. Well you do you. I was making a suggestion, not dictating an order as to what to do. The item worked for the second edition of the game because the 2nd edition of the game was not as codified, as is needed in the 5th edition of the game. Again, I was making a suggestion as to what I have since done for a character at my table, and it's worked and people are happy. Again, you do you.
As far as making suggestions, that's what this and all forums are for, regardless of the forums implied heading. I was just adding my input on how to interpret what I may do. Now, regardless of the intended forum heading and what the purpose of it is used for, well that's what the freedom of speech is for. Now I do not want to get into any sort of verbal spat war with you or any other on this forum because again if what I said above in my prior post or even this post angers you, then I apologize. One last thing to bear in mind, and yes I am assuming that most of the forum here has a US customer base and that our country gave us the right of free speech, well simply put... I bled for a quarter of a century protecting that right to do so... so I plan to speak what I want to when needed. All I ask is for a little bit of creative open mindedness in that what I've said above in both my August 8th forum post and indeed even in this post that my intention was to not offend the sensitivity of people's creative rights regardless of their country of origin or how they choose to play and/or interpret this wonderful game that Gary Gygax and David Arneson gave us nearly 50 years ago, but to perhaps make a suggestion as to how to play and interpret the game for themselves and their players that surround their tables.
Let me give you a few quotes that I've enjoyed when confronted by a monger of any sorts... and no I'm not considering you as a pure D&D rules monger... however your implied tone in your recent statement sure comes off as such in your reply post above after nearly two months from my original post. I try to live by many quotes because after all most are meme's and truthful at heart and hit home. So when I see those who are incapable of listening to a mere suggestion and interpreting it as such, I then make it a point to demonstrate these quote's as such to perhaps help to enlighten their own way of thinking before posting.
"All that's necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." loosely translated from Edmund Burke, but lost to the sand of time as to who exactly said it. It's implied meaning could mean to do what you feel in your heart is right!
"Praesis ut prosis ne ut imperes." translated from latin as "Lead in order to serve, not in order to rule."
Again, I apologize to you David42, or to any other who may have interpreted either of my statements (forums posts) as triggers to your senses of gaming acumen and how you may handle the rules at your tables. My intent was to share with the community a different school of thought as to how to handle the rules and mechanics of the game and to offer forth an item capable of doing so from previously published gaming material. Again, freedom of speech...
Very late response since I travelled to an old thread but an eldritch invocation that is mandatory for hexblades makes your pact weapon have +1 on all damage and weapon rolls (on top of making it your arcane focus and broadening the options of your pact weapons) but yes otherwise you are correct.
Hello folks,
I'm also very late to this topic as well and I definitely don't want to make waves on the specifics of what has already been talked about regarding the wording of this Shadow Blade spell itself or any of the nuisances that have already been discussed about how the spell interacts in conjunction to any of the Hexblade abilities or for any other class ability for that matter. But my goal here is more of a general chat in hopes that you possibly take to heart some of what I am about to say below. Please understand that these rules we read and use were always meant to be fluid and do not always need to be codified with an exact answer or purpose. This is regardless of whether you've been a DM or player for however long you're claiming to be an expert on some of these rules.
The bottom line is, that D&D is a game! Lighten up your reigns on the rules! What one person interprets as fun doesn't need to be dissected to the point of making it to be read as your way or the highway for a ruling. What I do want to point out is that unless you play in a hardcore by the "Rules as Written" Adventure League game that sometimes goes by the "Rules as Intended", then I suggest you talk out those individual rules with your DM's so they can make the ruling of the spell and/or class features in anyway that he or she and you works for your group. After all the whole point of the game is to have fun with friends. If your worried about breaking the game then your DM should make the encounters a little more challenging for those players that want to feel like they want to be a little more powerful. If the DM does allow something, then what's good for you is also good for your adversaries as well, so bear that in mind. Yes we have the Sage Advice and the forums here and folks like Jeremy Crawford or any of the other game creators that may chime in and possibly give us a rule clarification based off of their original intent for what is most often a poorly worded paragraph in one of the books that often times was not written with future books in mind or even read by everyone of the game designers who wrote these books before the product went to print. Please remember that they too are human just like you and me, they get up in the morning and live life just like us, they put there shoes on just like us, really the only difference is they just happen to be the ones helping to develop the books that we admire because that's the job they chose to do. If you think you can do better, then look for a job when they announce them. They are not gods who demand you play the game by their rules, they just helped in the creation of this wonderful RPG that we all like and they hope you like the finished product enough to buy the books, PDF's, or perhaps be a subscriber, so that you can game together for a few hours each week with your friends and enjoy their products. Trust me when I say that they as developers hope that you as Players and DM's alike take these base rules and dream big, adjust the rules as written to your play-style as needed, and then imagine the mechanics that make sense and use those rules which work for you and your gaming group and in turn your adventures. Again, the point of the game is to just have fun! And not be a rules lawyer all the time. Just be flexible, if someone asks for advise on a rule, give your interpretation of the rule that you use at your table, and not the hammer down this is the only way the rule was intended.
OK, so lastly, please do not shoot the messenger on this one either as I know some folks cannot stand to mix different editions of D&D together. So, all I ask is to have a open mind and and have some faith that all of the editions are fun in their own way. Hell, I've played them all over the period of nearly 40 years now and all I can tell you as a DM and Player myself is to have an open mind when gaming! So, I'll throw out this idea for those players that really want to have a Shadow Blade spell work for the Hexblade class features. Ask your DM to take a look into an old D&D 2nd edition magic item called the Ring of Spell Holding. Do your Google research if you do not have the original source for it. The easiest way to find it is to find a print or PDF copy of the Encyclopedia Magica Volume 3 (there are 4 volumes with each book with well over 1000 pages of nothing but magic items in each of them). You can find them on eBay in print and I'm sure or you can probably find them on Drive Thru RPG or maybe even the DM's guild. Anyway without spelling out the item exactly as that would probably be against the WotC rules here. The general gist of this ring is that its usable on cast spells only and the ring has the ability to increase the duration of any spell cast upon the wearer indefinitely until the ring is removed which then releases the spell, additionally the spell effect can be dispelled if targeted. Also voluntarily removing of the ring ends the spell immediately even if it still had possibly time left from it's originally time duration. Only one spell at a time. And it doesn't work on some spells such as the 2nd level invisibility because once you attack the spell is gone as stated. Nor spells that grant a one and done effect like Cure Disease, so you cannot expect to have disease immunity with wearing the ring. The Ring of Spell Holding had an experience cost of 2k and a Gold Piece value of 10k, which in my eyes is relatively low and fairly reasonable item to attain within the first 5-10 levels of play in D&D 5e. Now, I can see some DM's already saying that if they allowed this item that it would be a Legendary tier or even a Artifact tier item to them. To that I say why? Its a game, live a little. Assign it a reasonable rarity appropriately! My guess is that it would be rare item at the minimum and needing attunement and then let the players earn the item and give it to a party member with the caveat that if you do find a spell that is breaking the game with it then we (meaning the DM & Player) re-evaluate if this ring doesn't work with that particular spell in your future games. Give the players the opportunity to have some fun, use the thousands of items out there that do not have the D&D 5e label already on them a chance.
Enjoy folks, and cheers!
-CW
-CoreWatch
This is the "rules and game mechanics" board, not general.
I learned this just today, too, when my Eldritch Knight used that spell for the first time. However, as far as spell RAW is concerned, the spell says that it's a finesse weapon, and definition of finesse is that you add either STR or DEX to both attack and damage rolls. Boxed away in another definition but the damage factors are there in the spell. Was quite annoying having to add that manually all the time.
Comment not needed for a necro thread so I deleted it :)
A few comments.
1) As mentioned this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum - when folks post here they are not asking what they can make up for funsies since obviously a DM can make up whatever they like - they are asking what the rules ARE not what someone might want them to be.
2) You play the game the way you want to play it and everyone else will play it the way they want to play it. Your comments come across as telling folks how they should run their games (rules light, anything goes, overpowered magic items for the funsies) ... and not everyone, either DMs or players, enjoys that playstyle or type of world building.
3) You then go on to discuss some magic item that allows a spell to be maintained indefinitely by a worn magic item apparently without requiring concentration. Huh?
There is no way that would ever make it into a game I was running since it is overpowered in the context of 5e. Consider the cloak of invisibility - has a limited use time, requires an action to activate, requires attunement and is legendary - compare this to a ring of spell holding supporting the greater invisibility spell for a 7th level character. Unlimited duration greater invisibility at no cost to the wearer except an attunement slot AND you can swap the spell effect. An even better spell for a 10th level lore bard would be circle of power - magic resistance to spells and other magical effects in a 30' radius from the caster, unlimited duration. Plus the effect of the magic item makes it harder to dispel :). I'm afraid that your assessment of such a magic item used in a 5e campaign isn't correct even if your goal was to come up with a way to make a shadow blade permanent. The DM might as well just give the player a magic item with the properties of a shadow blade (call it a crystallized shadow blade) and call it a day.
However, if you want to run your game that way then more power to you ... but please don't suggest to others to ask their DMs for crazy overpowered items in other games.
They aren't added to damage rolls for two weapon fighting with the shadowblade as the offhand weapon, because of the two weapon fighting rules saying as much:
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
where did anyone say something about off-hand use?
The conversation has drifted over the years, but the assertion in the OP is that the hexblade is making their first attack with their pact weapon and making a second with the shadow blade.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
IDK, the OP?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Good afternoon David42and to any others who may find my post above... a bit lacking or tasteless for the interpreted meaning of this forums heading.
It's already been pointed out that nearly 2 months ago on the 8th of August 2022 that yes indeed this is a "rules and game mechanics" board, not a general forum, by Pantagruel666in the very next forum post for which I made no comment but understood their meaning. So yeah thanks for hammering it home without reading the above statement by him before replying or even for picking apart a few select sentences of my original post without listening to the whole intent of my original post. But again, I already knew that this was a rules and mechanics board before I posted it and regardless I wrote the post anyway to make it very much so as a suggestion. No where in my whole lengthy three paragraphs did I imply that you (or anyone else) must take what I was saying as gospel, I merely made a suggestion. Again, having played every edition of the game for nearly 40 years now, plus many other RPG's, I too realize that DM's/GM's and their players are going to play the game there way regardless of what is said here in this forum or any other forums for that matter by anyone. If I came across as a commanding version of "telling them" (your words above, since you're implying that I was) then I apologize. Perhaps it may have seemed that way to you. But when I was writing those paragraphs, that was not my intention. Also having retired from the military with 25+ years of experience perhaps my writing can come off a little blunt, and not candy fluffed, but again that was not my intent to trigger you or any others in my writing. So again, I apologize.
As far the magic item recommendation of the Ring of Spell Holding. Well you do you. I was making a suggestion, not dictating an order as to what to do. The item worked for the second edition of the game because the 2nd edition of the game was not as codified, as is needed in the 5th edition of the game. Again, I was making a suggestion as to what I have since done for a character at my table, and it's worked and people are happy. Again, you do you.
As far as making suggestions, that's what this and all forums are for, regardless of the forums implied heading. I was just adding my input on how to interpret what I may do. Now, regardless of the intended forum heading and what the purpose of it is used for, well that's what the freedom of speech is for. Now I do not want to get into any sort of verbal spat war with you or any other on this forum because again if what I said above in my prior post or even this post angers you, then I apologize. One last thing to bear in mind, and yes I am assuming that most of the forum here has a US customer base and that our country gave us the right of free speech, well simply put... I bled for a quarter of a century protecting that right to do so... so I plan to speak what I want to when needed. All I ask is for a little bit of creative open mindedness in that what I've said above in both my August 8th forum post and indeed even in this post that my intention was to not offend the sensitivity of people's creative rights regardless of their country of origin or how they choose to play and/or interpret this wonderful game that Gary Gygax and David Arneson gave us nearly 50 years ago, but to perhaps make a suggestion as to how to play and interpret the game for themselves and their players that surround their tables.
Let me give you a few quotes that I've enjoyed when confronted by a monger of any sorts... and no I'm not considering you as a pure D&D rules monger... however your implied tone in your recent statement sure comes off as such in your reply post above after nearly two months from my original post. I try to live by many quotes because after all most are meme's and truthful at heart and hit home. So when I see those who are incapable of listening to a mere suggestion and interpreting it as such, I then make it a point to demonstrate these quote's as such to perhaps help to enlighten their own way of thinking before posting.
"All that's necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." loosely translated from Edmund Burke, but lost to the sand of time as to who exactly said it. It's implied meaning could mean to do what you feel in your heart is right!
"Praesis ut prosis ne ut imperes." translated from latin as "Lead in order to serve, not in order to rule."
Again, I apologize to you David42, or to any other who may have interpreted either of my statements (forums posts) as triggers to your senses of gaming acumen and how you may handle the rules at your tables. My intent was to share with the community a different school of thought as to how to handle the rules and mechanics of the game and to offer forth an item capable of doing so from previously published gaming material. Again, freedom of speech...
Sincerely... and Cheers!
-CW
-CoreWatch