Distract drop invisibility?

I'll just put in that IMO, the developers' intent is beside the point here. Whatever they intended, they wrote what they wrote. If you want to know how they actually play, watch the twitch/youtube games. But if someone asks me what the rules say, I think we should answer based on what we think the rules say.

I mean, I would expect Crawford to agree with me about what the rules say, and if he didn't I would certainly want to think through why that might be. But if he says they intended something different than what they got, then either they should errata it or we should accept what we have.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Then let me rephrase. I think it's arrogant to claim that anyone on this thread knows the one and only true way to interpret the rules. I don't have the developers on speed dial and JC's twitter answers basically repeat the rules text with no further clarification. Feel free to tweet him about invisibility and breath weapon and see if you get a response.

So, are you claiming that your way of interpreting the rules is the way the designers intended to interpret the rules? I need to know this answer with certainty in order to correctly understand where you are coming from.
 

So, are you claiming that your way of interpreting the rules is the way the designers intended to interpret the rules? I need to know this answer with certainty in order to correctly understand where you are coming from.

Really? He says that no one in this thread knows the one and only true way and you ask if he meant to include himself in the no one in this thread?

That answer is absolutely clear.
 

Well, that would be something to consider. Do you have any references from devs that pertains to what's being discussed?
EDIT:

And there is this from from the D&D website on sage advice. They directly advocate sage advice for figuring out RAI, so however you view sage advice, that is what it is, straight from the horses mouth:

...
[FONT=&]In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
...

So RAI is expounded there.
And if a particular dev likes to play the game differently, sure. But I think they will admit as much that they are deviating from what the intent was when they were designing the game, as they had more to consider than just how they personally like to play D&D.[/FONT]

Some Sage Advice columns address RAI, but the tweets do not.
 

You say: melee attacks are described in more detail than regular attacks. I go look at the book, and it doesn't look like they are described in any more detail. So I ask for clarification. Because I still don't understand.


vs

Sure, you know, I've changed my mind out of sheer astonishment at how well you beat that dead horse. Who knew that could actually work? You've won at internets and beaten me, your way is the bestest and most right way and I am humbled in my abject wrongness. Please stop asking me questions about it, I am embarrassed I was so wrongnessbad.
 

So, are you claiming that your way of interpreting the rules is the way the designers intended to interpret the rules? I need to know this answer with certainty in order to correctly understand where you are coming from.

Well, when I have a beer with Mr Crawford Friday I'll ask him. We discuss the rules together like all the time, only problem is he's always asking me for DM tips. So annoying! :mad:

Oh wait ... no that's not right ... I don't know any of the book's authors personally. What was I thinking? :-S Oh right. That I don't know what they think and neither do you. All any of us can do is interpret the rules the best we can. Sometimes we're going to disagree.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it when you say you need to understand. If you needed to understand you'd read the posts I and other people have made since we've been quite clear.
 


Well, when I have a beer with Mr Crawford Friday I'll ask him. We discuss the rules together like all the time, only problem is he's always asking me for DM tips. So annoying! :mad:

Oh wait ... no that's not right ... I don't know any of the book's authors personally. What was I thinking? :-S Oh right. That I don't know what they think and neither do you. All any of us can do is interpret the rules the best we can. Sometimes we're going to disagree.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it when you say you need to understand. If you needed to understand you'd read the posts I and other people have made since we've been quite clear.

Ok, but I then is where we really disagree then. I feel like the existing sage advice DO make pretty clear what RAI here is regarding invis, attacks, and the help action - not 100% guaranteed because it's not the EXACT scenario, sure, I'll grant that. But saying what is there doesn't make for a pretty strong case, paired with the fact that there's nothing on sage advice that I know of that supports your interpretation as what the devs intended?
 
Last edited:

Ok, but I then is where we really disagree then. I feel like the existing sage advice DO make pretty clear what RAI here is regarding invis, attacks, and the help action - not 100% guaranteed because it's not the EXACT scenario, sure, I'll grant that. But saying what is there doesn't make for a pretty strong case, paired with the fact that there's nothing on sage advice that I know of that supports your interpretation as what the devs intended?

IMHO JC's twitter responses are basically a copy and paste from the rules and add no clarity one way or the other.

No offense, but if there's nothing new to add I'm ignoring future questions and comments.
 

Ok, but I then is where we really disagree then. I feel like the existing sage advice DO make pretty clear what RAI here is regarding invis, attacks, and the help action - not 100% guaranteed because it's not the EXACT scenario, sure, I'll grant that. But saying what is there doesn't make for a pretty strong case, paired with the fact that there's nothing on sage advice that I know of that supports your interpretation as what the devs intended?
Sure. Now, try this tweet and see if it affects your thinking at all:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/725744801572769792
 

Remove ads

Top