OK, I still don't think the effects of the spell are "stated directly," but it may be because I want to interpret "stated directly" as stated clearly and I guess that is not really the same thing. There is nothing clear about: "This mighty spell alters reality>"
I guess I assume all rules in D&D are at the whim of DM adjudication. But I definitely see your point, once you get past rule 0, the RAW in 5e (and a lot RPGs) can be odd or confusing in some cases.
No, the effects of that version of the Wish spell aren’t stated directly, but that’s ok, because the fact that the DM determines the effects is stated directly. Again, I am not asking that the specific conditions under which one can or cannot hide necessarily be rigidly defined. I am asking that if it is to be the DM’s responsibility to determine when a character can or can’t hide, then that fact should be stated directly. As it was in the 2014 PHB. Instead what we have is a fairly noncommittal statement, which is contradicted by further text that reads like it’s trying to be rigid rules definitions of when one can or can’t hide, but those definitions are incomplete. Like, either give us rigid definitions that are complete and function on their own or give the DM explicit instructions to make that determination themselves. This attempt to have it both ways just leads to a staggering lack of clarity.
Yeah, sure, the DM can do whatever they want regardless of what the rules say. But the rules still communicate design intent, and if the design intent is for stealth to be handled in a specific way, then the text should be clear about what that way is. If the design intent is for stealth to be highly flexible for the DM to handle in whatever way they see fit, then the text should be clear about that fact. The text of the Stealth rules in the 2024 PHB is neither. It is extremely unclear, expressing what seems to be a pretty specific way of handling stealth, but not adequately communicating what that way is, and simultaneously saying that the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. That’s not a very effective way to write a rulebook.
-But the Magic Weapon feature was replaced by Force Damage when it comes to demon/devil stat blocks IIRC. Hence arguments on here how the Barbarians Rage was nerfed in a way.
I agree, I was just explaining why I took issue with using explicit to describe Shadowdark Wish.
This may true / what is intended by the designer; however, I don't find that to be the case IRL at the table. I rarely assume a design intent when I play D&D. I almost always insert my and my group's intentions when we play. I think that is why I, and many others, have often said all editions of D&D play the same. We just sort of subconsciously make them play the same.
Yeah. Choose any of the other seventy-six "fixing stealth" threads that have been made since 5E's release back in 2014.
Sure, pulls up his Necromancer hood, what's another corpse for the pile!
I mean, you presented Shadowdark Wish to me as a counter-example to me saying that if the intent is for the 2024 Stealth rules to be handled by the DM they should say so clearly and explicitly. In that context, the subject of explicitness is the expectations placed on the DM. I would say Shadowdark Wish is indeed explicit in that way.
And that’s why nobody liked 4e. Because instead of bothering to try to understand the way it was actually designed, they just stubbornly continued trying to use it the same way they used every other D&D ruleset and then got frustrated that it wasn’t very good at doing that.
Isn't one of the first things the 5e rules say about hiding that the DM determines when a PC can hide? I seem to remember that, but I haven't really looked in ages.
I think that may be true for some; however, it was not the case for me and my group. I loved 4e, it was the edition that brought me back to D&D. However, we continued to play 4e much like how we played our version of 1e/BECMI before that. And then I taught my children to play D&D with 4e and I taught them to play much like how my grouped played from 1e-4e.
Yes, but then it goes on to give what appear to be very specific rigidly-defined rules for determining exactly that, but are incomplete. Among other things, the rules that it goes on to give seem to imply that a creature “finding you” is a specific thing these rules care about, and it notably does not say that the DM determines if a creature finds you.
No, because again, it contradicts itself and then fails to sufficiently define the more rigid rules it seems to be giving. I’ve said as much in every post I’ve responded to you with in this conversation, which kinda makes it seem like you aren’t actually reading my posts…
I don't see it that way. From my perspective, this is the rule: the DM determines when hiding is appropriate. Everything after that is simply guidance to the DM on how to adjudicate that rule. It is all completely optional after that first rule - that is the only rule you actually need.
