Can Antimagic Field supress a permanent True Polymorph?

[jaelis]

It seems they have decided not to list errata that are more clarifications than changes. Another good example of that came up recently, though I forget what it was

 

[Sunseeker]

Probably because Permanent was the game term for "Lasts until dispelled" in 3.5, and they seem to have kept the same Instantaneous vs Permanent distinction in 5e, but forgot to actually state what a duration of Permanent meant in the 5e rules.

Thus they thought the effect of polymorph and similar spells was already covered until they realised that that part had actually been omitted in the magic rules.

It would be nice if the D&D team could take a hint from the MTG team and create, I dunno, a document of some sort that can be easily referenced and downloaded that provides a consistent definition of terms. It could even be used across editions!

I mean, everyone who plays MTG knows what First Strike is. And the definition of First Strike hasn't changed, ever. But to this day we're still trying to decipher what "permanent" means and apparently even the authors can't get their wording straight.

Beyond that, this is one of the problems with attempting to use "common language" to write rules.

 

[Balfore]

It would be nice if the D&D team could take a hint from the MTG team and create, I dunno, a document of some sort that can be easily referenced and downloaded that provides a consistent definition of terms. It could even be used across editions!

I mean, everyone who plays MTG knows what First Strike is. And the definition of First Strike hasn't changed, ever. But to this day we're still trying to decipher what "permanent" means and apparently even the authors can't get their wording straight.

Beyond that, this is one of the problems with attempting to use "common language" to write rules.

Totally agree.
Even a permanent can be removed from the game, destroyed, dispelled, etc...in MTG

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Sunseeker]

Totally agree.
Even a permanent can be removed from the game, destroyed, dispelled, etc...in MTG

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Right, and these all have consistent definitions. It doesn't matter which block you start playing in, or which cards you use. The changes to established terms have been simple, Lifelink no longer stacks, and rare (off the top of my head, that's the only one that's been changed in the last 10 years or so).

Sometimes new terms are invented to better define things we already have, like "the area where I play my cards" became the Battlefield. That place where cards go that isn't the Graveyard, Hand or Library is now "Exile".

If Chris Cocks (and others at WOTC) really want D&D to become an evergreen product they're going to have to do this. We can't be sitting at the table 5 years from the launch of edition and wondering if any action is an Action or if it's "something else"TM. We can't have these kind of flubs where they forget to define a term in the PHB only to release a completely different definition online in a tweet or in a different book that not everyone may buy.

 

[jaelis]

If Chris Cocks (and others at WOTC) really want D&D to become an evergreen product they're going to have to do this. We can't be sitting at the table 5 years from the launch of edition and wondering if any action is an Action or if it's "something else"TM. We can't have these kind of flubs where they forget to define a term in the PHB only to release a completely different definition online in a tweet or in a different book that not everyone may buy.

Can't say I quite agree with that, myself. RPGs are different from TCGs. I think flexibility in regards to rules is part of what makes dnd good.

Not that rulebooks should contradict each other, but having some fuzzy areas seems ok to me.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Permanent is a duration for a spell, nothing more. The only thing it changes is when the spell expires on it's own. Everything else is still the same.

The spell is still a spell.
The creature is still a polymorphed creature.
The transformation is still in effect.
The spell can still be dispelled and suppressed.

Beyond that, this is one of the problems with attempting to use "common language" to write rules.

I think it's more a problem of half-assing things. Like you said - the authors often don't seem to agree on what the rules mean, and have a habit of 'clarifying' things in ways that are nonsensical or conflicting.

 

[Balfore]

Can't say I quite agree with that, myself. RPGs are different from TCGs. I think flexibility in regards to rules is part of what makes dnd good.

Not that rulebooks should contradict each other, but having some fuzzy areas seems ok to me.

It would be different if the rules were clear.
That way there's a baseline of thought.
Yes, the DM is ultimately the rule. But not understanding how something works lends to the confusion.
Having that baseline would help with decisions.
The PHB appears to have been rushed in the final stages, and some of the wording isn't plain.
Simplifying terms like : Save for half damage, instead of a long sentence to explain seems like wasted space on everything. Just state thing plainly.
LOL...not everyone has a master's degree in communication
A glossary of terms would have been nice in the back of the book.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Saeviomagy]

A glossary of terms would have been nice in the back of the book.

Or even just an index without pointless reference chains.

 

[Sunseeker]

Can't say I quite agree with that, myself. RPGs are different from TCGs. I think flexibility in regards to rules is part of what makes dnd good.

Not that rulebooks should contradict each other, but having some fuzzy areas seems ok to me.

You and I and the people we play with are welcome to mod the rules of any game. "Fuzziness" leads to confusion and puts the burden of clear rules on you and me. In MTG we all know what the rules are. That doesnt mean we play by them outside of sanctioned events. There is no rule police who go around thumping gamers on the head who choose not to follow whats in the book.

That is to say: making clearer rulebooks doesnt prevent you from changing the rules at home. But making "fuzzy" DOES require you to clear up the rules at home. So making clearer rules is 100% gain for 0 loss.

 

[Balfore]

Or even just an index without pointless reference chains.

Exactly, when you have to talk about: ROI, RAW and Rxx, and Rxq etc... it makes for all the fuzziness. Like MTG before they got their act together with "the stack"..LOL

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk