Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7342004" data-attributes="member: 12731">This is not a good argument from a legalistic point of view.I don't contest your conclusion, that the DM is authorized to make rulings. However, the DM is authorized to make rulings because the rules say so, not because the rules does not specify every circumstance.The fact that Invisibility does not specify every cause for it to end should not be taken as license to interpret it as &quot;anything&quot; can end it. Instead, D&amp;D is an exception-based rules design. So, nothing can end Invisibility except1) general rules, such as 1a) &quot;when the duration runs out&quot;, or 1b) causes that shut down spells in general (breaking Concentration, Dispel Magic etc)1c) but also other general rules, such as the one empowering DMs to make rulings2) specific exceptions 2a) ...mentioned in the spell: taking the Attack or Cast Spell action2b) ...but also anywhere else: such as a hypothetical adventure saying &quot;one round in any casting Invisibility, the Frog God's Curse ends the spell&quot; for exampleIn short, it is better to justify &quot;using Help ends Invisibility&quot; because &quot;the DM says so&quot; than because of any implied rules disagreement, or because the DM is empowered to fill in any undefined states in the rules.There are no disagreements over what the rules say, and no undefined states (at least not in this case). There may well be cases where you, the DM, feel the rules yield unsatisfying results, and you are free to overrule those rules whenever you feel that is warranted.Best regards</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7342004, member: 12731"] This is not a good argument from a legalistic point of view. I don't contest your conclusion, that the DM is authorized to make rulings. However, the DM is authorized to make rulings because the rules say so, not because the rules does not specify every circumstance. The fact that Invisibility does not specify every cause for it to end should not be taken as license to interpret it as "anything" can end it. Instead, D&D is an exception-based rules design. So, [B]nothing[/B] can end Invisibility [B]except[/B] 1) general rules, such as 1a) "when the duration runs out", or 1b) causes that shut down spells in general (breaking Concentration, Dispel Magic etc) 1c) but also other general rules, such as the one empowering DMs to make rulings 2) specific exceptions 2a) ...mentioned in the spell: taking the Attack or Cast Spell action 2b) ...but also anywhere else: such as a hypothetical adventure saying "one round in any casting Invisibility, the Frog God's Curse ends the spell" for example In short, it is better to justify "using Help ends Invisibility" because "the DM says so" than because of any implied rules disagreement, or because the DM is empowered to fill in any undefined states in the rules. There are no disagreements over what the rules say, and no undefined states (at least not in this case). There may well be cases where you, the DM, feel the rules yield unsatisfying results, and you are free to overrule those rules whenever you feel that is warranted. Best regards [/QUOTE]

Verification