D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
- Status
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
No, it's straight mechanics:
The goblin has 5 h.p., the fireball does 16. End of goblin.
The next goblin has 5 h.p., the longsword does 2. Goblin fights on.
Lore has nothing to do with it. The goblin lives or dies in these examples by sheer numerical mechanics, nothing else.
Where lore comes in is the narration of the in-game effects of these mechanical events: "The goblin screams briefly then falls silent as its charred corpse crumples to the floor." "The sword hits the goblin hard, staggers it a bit, and puts a small cut in its shoulder; but the creature looks determined to fight on.". And there's nothing whatsoever that says these narrations have to be the same every time, or even ever the same twice...the narration is not bound by any rule saying what they must be or say. The only expectation is that the narration will at least vaguely hew to what the underlying mechanical results suggest.
Different definition of 'mechanic' than I (and I suspect others) would use.
A mechanic is something that is hard-coded, usually with numbers attached somehow; and is either a rule unto itself or is part of one. "A Dwarf character gains +1 Str +1 Con and -1 Cha" is a hard-coded game mechanical rule.
Lore is something else, much less definable or code-able, and falls under guidelines rather than rules. "Dwarf characters tend to be tougher than most, but also tend to be harder to get along with" is a set of guidelines only, but not a rule unless there's something somewhere else that mechanically reflects that lore by changing the numeric stats for Dwarves.
Well...not quite. Encumbrance tells you how the game is played and has specific mechanical ramifications e.g. move rate. Backstory helps to (but does not fully) tell you what might make your character tick and gives you some RP ideas to flesh out, but most of the time has no mechanical impact whatsoever*.
* - unless your game is using some sort of social-status mechanics a la Birthright, but that's a corner case.
Lan-"despite how it might seem from what I'm posting these days, I really do prefer a rules-lighter type of game"-efan
Japan is part of Asia, much like Madagascar is part of Africa or the island I'm sitting on (Vancouver Island) is part of North America as are all of Canada's Arctic islands. The definition of a continent usually includes those islands close around it; oddballs such as Hawaii in the middle of oceans are...well...whatever they are.
Australia, however, is not a continent; both it and Tasmania are part of Oceania which is kind of its own mess when it comes to trying to define these things.
Lan-"I knew that degree in geography would come in useful some day"-efan
Did anyone say that Australia is a continent?
The problem is that Garys MM is not actually describing African Lions. For example it claims that "Lions do not climb trees well and yet here we have an entire pride up a tree:
so if the description is not an African Lion then maybe it is for a DnD Lion that appears to be a very different beast indeed and therefore irrelevant to discussions around African Lions.
Right, fixed damge. Everything in 4e was based on the mechanics with the lore draped loosely over top so every level 2 minion will be doing X damage because that is how much damage a level 2 minion does according to the spread sheet.
Mainly it appears to be confusing because, as per my post, we are not even talking about your GH game. We already know that your players had no idea what was going on and so of course had no idea what to expect or not - that is irrelevant. If you insist on mixing conversations then no wonder you get confused.
And in ADnD a peasant background is as relevant as a noble background. You could say you were the God-King of Fantasystan and it would be just as relevant to the game.
And yet we have people who want to discuss what is canon or not that are trying to remember stories they read 20 years ago and wondering why what they remember is not what is actually written. They can not even remember main plot points like Raistlin making a pact with Fistandantilus. It puts the lie to the claim that remembering something is insignificant.
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]:
Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62:
The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious.
Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book:
When they are reworking an existing creature, they tell us (and also tell us why).
Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62:
[T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies.
The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious.
Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book:
Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild.
When they are reworking an existing creature, they tell us (and also tell us why).
When some person in Tennessee decided to name a town Memphis, they weren't changing anything about Egypt. They were just recycling a name.
Recycling a name may cause confusion (qv someone who thinks they'll find Elvis's shrine in Egypt, or who goes to Tennessee hoping to see N-thousand year old pyramids). But it doesn't change anything about the thing whose name has been reused.
I mean, judging from your user name your name might be Bill. Does your identity get shaken every time a newborn is named Bill? I'm guessing not.
So now you're making up your own GH lore in an attempt to show that my GH campaign contradicted canon?
From the big book in the boxed set, p 4:
The heavesn are far more important and interesting. We must study the stars, those which wander and those which are fixed, to properly understand Astrology. . . .
When both Mistress [Luna] and Handmaiden [Celene] are full, things of great portent are likely to occur, depending upon the positions of the five wandering stars in the Lairs, naturally.
When both Mistress [Luna] and Handmaiden [Celene] are full, things of great portent are likely to occur, depending upon the positions of the five wandering stars in the Lairs, naturally.
That doesn't say that "Astrology is not magical power". It implies the exact opposite!
It's 20 years, so I don't recall precisely. The details are in Dragonlance Adventures: bonus spells and caster levels when the moon is full, I think, and correpsonding penalties when the moon is new.
EDIT: Ninja'd by [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION].
Last edited:
Most standard lists of continents include it as one.
2nd ed AD&D uses nearly identical mechancis to Gygax's AD&D. But the experience is clearly intended to be quite different, and at least at many table it was.
- Status
Similar Threads
