D&D (2024) Thoughts on Stealth and D&D2024

[KYRON45]

I understand the issue just as well as you do, we just don't agree on it. You're looking for a problem and found one, I'm looking for a solution and found one. Since we are not playing the game together we both are correct.

I don’t have a problem with any of it. I was just enjoying the discussion.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I don’t have a problem with any of it. I was just enjoying the discussion.

Same here.

 

[ezo]

I don’t have a problem with any of it. I was just enjoying the discussion.

Same here.

Whoa whoa whoa...

You were both enjoying this...?

Boy, what the heck was I doing???

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Is there an assumption in 5.5 that you can't do something unless there's a rule that says you can? Or am I misunderstanding?

Probably.
I guess if there is no specific rule, assume it works like it does in the real world.
It is an exception based design. So only specific rules superseed common sense.

And then there is even the DM guideline: rules are no physics. So if rules are not meant to specifically superseed physics, combining rules to do so should not work either. So if something seems wonky, the DM can just say: nope, physics win.

 

[MerricB]

Probably.
I guess if there is no specific rule, assume it works like it does in the real world.
It is an exception based design. So only specific rules superseed common sense.

And then there is even the DM guideline: rules are no physics. So if rules are not meant to specifically superseed physics, combining rules to do so should not work either. So if something seems wonky, the DM can just say: nope, physics win.

It really does raise the question of what assumptions do the designers make that they assume we're also making?

Some things are explicitly stated; others are included because "this is how it was done before" and they can leave a new player wondering why the rules work that way... or why everyone else rules it differently when the rules DON'T say that!

Cheers!

 

[KYRON45]

Whoa whoa whoa...

You were both enjoying this...?

Boy, what the heck was I doing???

At first I thought they were trolling.
Then I decided to take a chance and maybe help someone learn something. Not from the POV as a know it all; more like a mentor.
Then it felt like trolling again.

I said from the beginning that if they felt they were right then that’s ok too.
All that being said…I’ve been pretty hopped up on cold pills and coffee all day.

 

[Sorinth]

It really does raise the question of what assumptions do the designers make that they assume we're also making?

Some things are explicitly stated; others are included because "this is how it was done before" and they can leave a new player wondering why the rules work that way... or why everyone else rules it differently when the rules DON'T say that!

Cheers!

This is where I think the DMG in particular kind of fails, I fully support the DM having to determine in the moment stuff like facing and whether you can stealth over clearly defined rules that are very likely to end up problematic. But that's exactly why there should be a section/paragraph that says hey this is up to you the DM to decided and here's how the different decisions you can make will likely impact the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It really does raise the question of what assumptions do the designers make that they assume we're also making?

Some things are explicitly stated; others are included because "this is how it was done before" and they can leave a new player wondering why the rules work that way... or why everyone else rules it differently when the rules DON'T say that!

Cheers!

I guess most people know enough about physics to make assumptions about a lot of things. And even if they are not totally correct, as long as the table agrees, no harm done.

Do you really want the designers to have an appendix that explains how physics work? Maybe that would be beyond the point of a ruleset.

Or do you just want a sentence that says: assume that real world physics apply if nothing in the rules says otherwise?

I think I prefer the "rules are no physics" statement. Which actually puts physics over rules. My 2nd proposal would leave the door open for any kinds of exploits.

 

[James Gasik]

RE: underwater fire. Some substances (magnesium for example) can burn underwater. Butyl lithium actually ignites when it comes into contact with water!

 

[Charlaquin]

It does not say you can see every LOS at the same time.

It also doesn’t say you can’t shoot the moon with an arrow. Exceptions-based design is not in the business of making rules for things you can’t do.