D&D 5E A lich must periodically feed souls to its phalactery...
- Thread starter Melkor
- Start date
The person posting a dictionary definition is calling someone else pedantic? Really?
I prefer to use the primary definition of the word periodically for that text. It makes the phylactery feel more like magic with a duration that must be renewed as opposed to magic that might unexpectedly sputter out, especially since there is no real detail there. Feel free to use the alternative definition.
The nice thing about 5E is that both are completely valid interpretations at our individual tables. For me, since no two souls are going to be of the same "quality" it just makes sense that the time between "required feedings" is going to vary. Maybe pure hearted virgins last for centuries but sniveling goblin toadies only last a few months. The lich that needs tons of uninterrupted time to bring his evil plan to fruition is going to want to devour that pure soul before commencing.
Hey look, an adventure hook!
/on a side note, IMO there is nothing that drains the fun out of D&D quite like reading descriptions like they were the text on a Magic card. ::blech::
Melkor
Explorer
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the last decade and-a-half of D&D for us made it hard to try and look at the game from a different angle. A rules set that is left a bit more vague and open to DM interpretation. You should have seen the discussions at our table around Stealth and Hiding in 5E.
At least the ones that dominated discussion forums were just ridiculous -- it was like everyone's goal was to invent cracks in the rules to somehow prove 5E was not as good as [insert favorite edition here]. I for one am very pleased that the designers finally remembered there is a human behind the screen, not a random number generator and results output machine. You can hide when the DM says you can hide. Sure, you can use the rules as a basis for an argument (along with precedent and just plain common sense) but in the end the guy behind the screen is making the final call, not the rule book. If it is your regular play group, those circumstances resolve themselves as table rules pretty quickly. If you are playing at a con game, it is incumbent upon the DM to make clear (either at the outset or at the first use) how he tends to rule on such things. Either way, it's the DM's table.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
So you're saying a giant snake is like a phylactery? You-Know-Who approves!
So you're saying a giant snake is like a phylactery? You-Know-Who approves!
34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.
"'But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery.'
Your quote indicates that though the discussion around Stealth and Hiding was "more violent than before", you ended up with mastery of how to apply Stealth and Hiding in 5E D&D. Congratulations!
As for giant snakes and You-Know-Who... the horcrux is a completely innovative idea, a breakthrough; if it were just the same thing as a phylactery, why would Rowling have invented the word "horcrux"?
Everyone plays by the rules of D&D. Some players are a bit more strict, some a little more lenient.
But without rules, the game would be chaos. The rules that the 5E designers choose are just a set of rules. Not necessarily better or worse than any other set of rules that they could have come up with. There are a lot of posters that get very vocal if someone says that one of their favorite 5E rules is subpar (like the Stealth rules). A lack of rules typically does not make for good rules.
Yes, it is the DM's table. But without consistent rules and rulings, he might find his table participation dwindling. I personally do not prefer a haphazard DM who makes on the fly rulings which seem to change from week to week. I prefer a good core and fairly complete set of rules in the game system and a DM that for the most part, uses those rules (or uses consistent house rules). Too much rules detail is not needed, but enough rules detail is needed so that the game tends to be played fairly similar at many tables.
Like I said in the bit you quoted, in regular groups those house rules and the DM's general application of those rules is worked out pretty quickly, and in a one off or a con game the DM is responsible for letting players know how he applies rules and then do so consistently. i totally agree that haphazard rulings are detrimental to play since it undermines player agency, and in general I think a good DM can work within the rules as intended -- but that assumes a set of rules (like 5E's) that embrace the human factor behind the screen. Ultimately, the best scenario is one in which players and the DM work toward everyone else's fun. The players' primary tool is how they engage the game and one another. The DM's is how they adjudicate the PC actions. Jerks on either side of the screen can cause a breakdown of fun, whether due to too-strict reading of rules or inconsistent application of the same.
Melkor
Explorer
Eventually, we just ended up going over the responses Mike Mearls posted to various questions on the topic, and stuck with what we thought the "intent" and "spirit of the rules" that the design team seemed to be going after (most of it revolved around the Halfling's hide ability and sneak attacks). And also, just going back to how we played AD&D and 2E where the DM simply ruled on anything vague or left open to a wide range of interpretation. It is just a shift that has been surprisingly difficult after playing 15 years of post 2E D&D.
