D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Nagol]

I see no mechanic stating that fighters don't have that special ability. If he wants to throw the sword 100 yards at an orc, he's in trouble due to the thrown mechanics. If he wants to use the Moon Split special ability that the rules don't say that he doesn't have, that sword flies all the way to the moon and cracks it in half without dealing damage. That's how this ability that the rules don't say he doesn't have works.

No, that's not how a rule system works. The rule system details what entity X can do not exhaustively present everything it cannot.

That's not entirely accurate. Much of the lore would remain the same, but a lot would change. For example, if Pendragon doesn't have all the Mordenkainen, Bigby, Rary, etc. spells, then those suddenly vanish from the lore. Mechanics can also create lore and vice versa.

Mordenkainen, Bigby, et al. are characters that can be represented by (almost) any rules system. Would the expressions in any system be able to do everything and only what (any particular) D&D edition expression be able to do? Probably not. But, the characters would remain.

1e I think, but not sure.

Edit: Yes. 1e. I looked it up and it's in the DMG. Magic is powered by the positive and negative planes.

Well, it sort of says that if you squint (which wasn't your original assertion anyway). It says spells are charged with energy for one or both those planes which allows the casting but the actual spell effect is powered from energy from "some plane in the multiverse". That has little to no bearing on whether other external factors (like moon phase) affect spell casting. Perhaps, the planar boundaries change permeability as the moons wax and wane so the amount of energy available changes resulting in changes to effective caster levels and saving throw chances. It isn't against lore; lore is silent on the subject which is my original point.

 

[Nagol]

If a setting does not discuss how magic works, then it automatically works like the base books. If it were different, it would say so. That's how settings work. They use the base edition rules and lore, then tell you how the setting is different from that. There have been no exceptions that I am aware of.

<snip>

If a setting is silent then lore has no rationale for how magic works and it can work pretty much any way that doesn't contradict other aspects of lore. That's why Greyhawk can be used with OD&D,1e, BECMI, 2e, 3.X, 4e, and 5e trivially and can be used with pretty much any other fantasy game system from Runequest through Desolation. Whatever the default mechanic of the system in play, the setting will support it because the lore is silent on expectations. Changes the DM wishes to include won't affect the lore because the lore has presented nothing in contradiction.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that's not how a rule system works. The rule system details what entity X can do not exhaustively present everything it cannot.

Which is my point.

You said, "Even if you take the general discussion from the 1e DMG as lore, there is nothing to state that other external factors (such as moon phase) don't play a role on practice.", which is like the mythic fighter ability, though on a smaller scale. Magic is detailed as X, which does not include moon phase.

Mordenkainen, Bigby, et al. are characters that can be represented by (almost) any rules system. Would the expressions in any system be able to do everything and only what (any particular) D&D edition expression be able to do? Probably not. But, the characters would remain.

Their spells are a part of the lore, as are specific D&D classes that are not represented in those other systems. The lore does change, even if most of it does not.

 

[Maxperson]

If a setting is silent then lore has no rationale for how magic works and it can work pretty much any way that doesn't contradict other aspects of lore.

If you change it, sure. Otherwise it works like the base game. Setting lore = setting specific lore changes + base game lore. The base game lore is setting lore where it is not changed by the setting specific changes.

 

[Nagol]

Which is my point.

You said, "Even if you take the general discussion from the 1e DMG as lore, there is nothing to state that other external factors (such as moon phase) don't play a role on practice.", which is like the mythic fighter ability, though on a smaller scale. Magic is detailed as X, which does not include moon phase.



Their spells are a part of the lore, as are specific D&D classes that are not represented in those other systems. The lore does change, even if most of it does not.

Nope. Rule systems work by detailing what can be done. Setting/lore works by detailing what is known.

So if the rule system doesn't provide a mechanic that let's you hit the moon with a thrown weapon then you can't hit the moon with a thrown weapon using the rules.

If the lore is silent on a topic like say what is in western Oerik, then all that means is anything can be there so long as it doesn't contradict other existing lore (so no 10,000 mile high obelisk that would be visible from the western sections of eastern Oerik, for example).

Spells known by the various NPCs simply aren't detailed in the lore (with the exceptions of spells specifically named after their creators/primary users). Does Mordenkainen know Lightning Bolt or Melf's Minute Meteors? Who knows? The lore is silent. He does have an ability to house people in a otherworldly mansion, can create a sword composed of force to fight for him, and can conjure a spectral hound to warn of intruders and defend an area. The expressions of those abilities need to comport to the rules of whatever system is being used to operate the setting.

Those few accomplishments that are acknowledged in lore need to be nodded to for any faithful use of the canon, but specific abilities are unimportant.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. Rule systems work by detailing what can be done. Setting/lore works by detailing what is known.

Those very specific D&D classes are a part of what is known. As are the abilities those classes, prestige classes, paths, etc. granted by those D&D classes.

So if the rule system doesn't provide a mechanic that let's you hit the moon with a thrown weapon then you can't hit the moon with a thrown weapon using the rules.

The rules system doesn't provide a mechanic for moons to grant spells, either.

If the lore is silent on a topic like say what is in western Oerik, then all that means is anything can be there so long as it doesn't contradict other existing lore (so no 10,000 mile high obelisk that would be visible from the western sections of eastern Oerik, for example).

Agreed.

Spells known by the various NPCs simply aren't detailed in the lore (with the exceptions of spells specifically named after their creators/primary users). Does Mordenkainen know Lightning Bolt or Melf's Minute Meteors? Who knows? The lore is silent. He does have an ability to house people in a otherworldly mansion, can create a sword composed of force to fight for him, and can conjure a spectral hound to warn of intruders and defend an area. The expressions of those abilities need to comport to the rules of whatever system is being used to operate the setting.

Elminster has spellfire and abilities granted as a Chosen of Mystra. There are going to be things that one system doesn't have mechanics for, that are a part of setting lore.

Those few accomplishments that are acknowledged in lore need to be nodded to for any faithful use of the canon, but specific abilities are unimportant.

Those spells and abilities are also open to players to use. They are more than just some vague rumor that Mordenkainen can make a sword or mansion. PC wizards can also do it, except where they can't because those spells don't exist in any other game except for Pathfinder.

 

[Shasarak]

But what if the lore has no backing mechanic at all?

The later editions (3e and onwards) have tried to put mechanical backings behind more and more of the lore; and if that's where your experience lies then I can see how it would be easy to lump lore and rules together. In earlier editions this wasn't quite as prevalent...if I wanted to play a swashbuckler-type in 1e, for example, I could certainly do it but it would mostly be on the RP and 'lore' side; there weren't many mechanics for me to lean on to divorce it from a straight Fighter or Fighter-Thief. Some don't like this, and want the mechanics to more directly reflect (or allow for at all) the character they want to play. Personally, I'm not that concerned with the mechanics and don't mind just doing it through roleplay and lore.

Another example: the lore says that Dwarves are tough and stubborn. But without a mechanical backup that's all it is - lore: a guideline to what might make your Dwarf PC tick and what to expect when meeting Dwarves during the campaign. It's not a rule, nor a mechanic, nor anything else hard-coded...and this is my overall point in all this, I suppose: not all lore has or needs mechanical backup, and without it it's just...lore, to be used or ignored or amended as desired much more easily than a hard rule. It doesn't break the game if I decide to play a weak charismatic Dwarf - and as player I in theory have the right to do that - but it does break the game (or at least put some heavy cracks in it) if I arbitrarily decide my Dwarf has +5 to hit everything "just because". See the difference?

Lan-"does a swashbuckler swash buckles or buckle swashes?"-efan

Obviously a swashbuckler swashb uckles otherwise he is just a fighter showing off!

Personally I dont see the point of having lore stating that Dwarves are tough if in actual fact they are just as tough as everyone else. Elves are smart but actually have exactly the same stats as dumb Half-Orcs. Halflings are small but have exactly the same reach as a Goliath. Greatswords do more damage but actually exactly the same as a blunt Bread Knife.

I am sure that this mythical RPG actually exists for those of us that need games absolutely internally balanced but not even the most balanced DnD went that far.

 

[Nagol]

Those very specific D&D classes are a part of what is known. As are the abilities those classes, prestige classes, paths, etc. granted by those D&D classes.

Those are specific rule expressions and not typically referenced in lore otherwise you couldn't use 3.X for Greyhawk since all those Thief-class and Assassin-class characters couldn't exist not to mention Magic-User vs. Wizard and what is that Sorcerer-class anyway? When using lore, you need to map it onto the rules chassis In use where it best fits. The worst lore is that which doesn't fit the mechanics and vice versa.

The rules system doesn't provide a mechanic for moons to grant spells, either.

It's good that the moons don't grant spells then. The moon phases merely somehow affect the amount of energy delivered by spells in a predictable way.

Elminster has spellfire and abilities granted as a Chosen of Mystra. There are going to be things that one system doesn't have mechanics for, that are a part of setting lore.[/QUOE]

Not in Greyhawk he doesn't. And I can emulate the Chosen easily enough in Runequest, Ars Magica, or Hero; I can't speak to spellfire because I don't read the Realms' novels. You map the lore to the rule chassis. If you find holes, either extend the chassis or fold, spindle, and mutilate the chassis to fit best you can.

Those spells and abilities are also open to players to use. They are more than just some vague rumor that Mordenkainen can make a sword or mansion. PC wizards can also do it, except where they can't because those spells don't exist in any other game except for Pathfinder.

So? Appropriately powered PCs can acquire those same abilities. Nothing prevents that from happening in most game systems. It's not like there is a IP lock on the concepts that prevent other systems from developing spectral dogs, floating swords of energy, and too-big-on-the inside houses.

 

[Staccat0]

This is one of those gripes that is so inherently confusing to me that it makes me wonder if I am really good at D&D or really bad at D&D.

 

[pemerton]

If the dictionary replaced an older definition with another yet used the same word for it, we'd assume it was a change in the meaning of the word

Why? That would depend entirely on what the etymology and usage commentary told us. (I mean, clearly it's the same grapheme/phoneme with a different meaning - but until we check the etymology etc we can't tell whether it's a homonym or a new usage of an old word.)

Or to give another example: if a book catalogue takes out an old out-of-print book called XYZ, and inserts a newly-published book called XYZ, I'm not going to assume that the new book is a reprint or revision of the old book if it has a different author, different copyright history, and is expressly described in terms that makes it clear that it is a different book!

Clearly the archons of 4e are not the archons of 2e/3e

Correct. That is my point. It is a new creature using an established name - whereas 4e eladrins are clearly an existing creature being re-imagined/re-concepted.

The meaning of archon was changed.

The meaning of the phoneme/grapheme "archon" was changed. The in-game reference of the pre-existing English word "archon" was changed. But the nature of the creatures Jeff Grubb invented wasn't changed. A 4e air archon is not a "reconcepting" of a hound archon. It obviously is not, and W&M tells us the same. The contrast with a 4e ghaele or bralani is obvious.

They radically changed Archons and had to develop a cover story for it.

<snip>'

They then pulled a fast one on everyone who knew what Archons were, by having them be radically different.

You do know that "cover story" is, in this context, a euphemism for "lie"? And that "pulling a fast one" means tricking/deceiving?

They decided that hound, lantern etc archons were not worth reprinting with 4e stats. They did want some elemental soldiers. And they used the name "archon" to describe the latter. It's obvious that they did this - (a) because we can see the evidence, and (b) because they tell us as much in Worlds & Monsters! There's no cover story. No lie. No deception or trickery.

There is a linguistic change - to what is labelled by "archon". There is no cosmological change - no one is supposed to imagine that the archons PS talked about are the same creatures as are manufactured by primordials in archon forges.

Again, the contrast with eladrin - which are reimagined and which clearly are intended to be the same creature in a revised conception.

They used the name Archon, like you did with Wizards of High Sorcery, which set certain expectations based on what Archons meant in D&D prior to 4e.

And those expectations were defeated.

Whether or not that caused confusion is one thing. Whether or not it was a good idea is yet another thing.

But anyone who insists Because they used the same name, they must be conceptual/thematic successors/reimaginings of the same creatures, is just being silly. It's obvious that they're not. And for those who can't recognise obvious, WotC even told as as much in W&M.

The idea that WotC was somehow trying to tricky you, by making you think that an air archon is the same sort of thing as a lantern archon, is frankly bizarre.