Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6874156" data-attributes="member: 23751">Sorry, but no.&nbsp; Not being written in the rules = not RAW is not only sound logic, but it's an absolute fact.No change to a rule = no house rule.&nbsp; Letting a rule as written be the default is not making a ruling or a house rule.Fire does not always light combustibles.&nbsp; Wood is combustible, but green wood will often not light with a fire.&nbsp; By RAW fireball lights nothing.&nbsp; By common sense, virtually all DMs would allow it to at least burn highly combustibles and perhaps more.You don't see the sentiment from me.&nbsp; You'll see me argue what RAW is and says, but that doesn't mean that I hold it in such high regard that I don't habitually sacrifice it to make the game better.LOL&nbsp; I suppose that's as close as I can expect you to come to agreeing with me.&nbsp; I'll take it!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />A rule is anything that you are supposed to follow, mechanical or otherwise.&nbsp; Let me try it with your analogy above.&nbsp; There is this answer box.&nbsp; The box on the sheet doesn't care if the answer is correct or not.&nbsp; As long as something is written in the box, it's an answer to that riddle.&nbsp; Her patron has given her an answer to the riddle, so there is in fact something now written there.&nbsp; I have not actually changed the mechanics of the int check, because the answer in that box is incorrect if she failed it, and correct if she succeeded.&nbsp; The mechanics of the check are intact.Now Zone of Truth comes into play.&nbsp; It doesn't care if an answer is correct or not.&nbsp; It just wants the truth and forces an answer that cannot be a lie, and can be incorrect if the PC failing the save believes that she knows the truth, and Eloelle does know the truth, just not the correct truth.&nbsp; She has to say that truth to the caster as she failed her save.&nbsp; To say anything else is to alter the mechanics of Zone of Truth.Now, after she gives the &quot;answer&quot; to the riddle and the caster tries it and it's not correct, Eloelle has an interesting opportunity to discuss with her patron why he lied to her.&nbsp; That interaction doesn't happen if you let the narrative change the Zone of Truth mechanics to have her lie and say she refuses to answer.&nbsp; It doesn't matter what I narrate: she failed her Int check; she doesn't have an answer.That doesn't matter to me as I'm not trying to turn your concept int a self-delusion.&nbsp; Eloelle as a self-delusion or Eloelle as someone in contact with a real entity are both great concepts.&nbsp; She can really know an incorrect answer.&nbsp; That changes nothing.&nbsp; She still has to give that incorrect answer that she really knows to the caster.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6874156, member: 23751"] Sorry, but no. Not being written in the rules = not RAW is not only sound logic, but it's an absolute fact. No change to a rule = no house rule. Letting a rule as written be the default is not making a ruling or a house rule. Fire does not always light combustibles. Wood is combustible, but green wood will often not light with a fire. By RAW fireball lights nothing. By common sense, virtually all DMs would allow it to at least burn highly combustibles and perhaps more. You don't see the sentiment from me. You'll see me argue what RAW is and says, but that doesn't mean that I hold it in such high regard that I don't habitually sacrifice it to make the game better. LOL I suppose that's as close as I can expect you to come to agreeing with me. I'll take it! ;) A rule is anything that you are supposed to follow, mechanical or otherwise. Let me try it with your analogy above. There is this answer box. The box on the sheet doesn't care if the answer is correct or not. As long as something is written in the box, it's an answer to that riddle. Her patron has given her an answer to the riddle, so there is in fact something now written there. I have not actually changed the mechanics of the int check, because the answer in that box is incorrect if she failed it, and correct if she succeeded. The mechanics of the check are intact. Now Zone of Truth comes into play. It doesn't care if an answer is correct or not. It just wants the truth and forces an answer that cannot be a lie, and can be incorrect if the PC failing the save believes that she knows the truth, and Eloelle does know the truth, just not the correct truth. She has to say that truth to the caster as she failed her save. To say anything else is to alter the mechanics of Zone of Truth. Now, after she gives the "answer" to the riddle and the caster tries it and it's not correct, Eloelle has an interesting opportunity to discuss with her patron why he lied to her. That interaction doesn't happen if you let the narrative change the Zone of Truth mechanics to have her lie and say she refuses to answer. It doesn't matter what I narrate: she failed her Int check; she doesn't have an answer. That doesn't matter to me as I'm not trying to turn your concept int a self-delusion. Eloelle as a self-delusion or Eloelle as someone in contact with a real entity are both great concepts. She can really know an incorrect answer. That changes nothing. She still has to give that incorrect answer that she really knows to the caster. [/QUOTE]

Verification