Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6874937" data-attributes="member: 23751">There is zero extrapolation there.&nbsp; The rule is 1 hit point per day of rest.&nbsp; You engage that rule each day. This is not a house rule, because the rules for interacting and damaging objects are on page 185.&nbsp; The rule is that the DM decides the AC, hit points and any resistances for the object.&nbsp; The sword does the damage.&nbsp; No extrapolation is necessary at all.&nbsp; If your ruling alters or adds to a mechanic, it's a house rule.&nbsp; It does not apply to any other house but yours.Okay.&nbsp; Aside from the fact that there are rules for swords cutting cord, I have to say...&nbsp; And? Yes, the DM has to come up with stuff.&nbsp; NONE of those things are RAW.&nbsp; It's impossible for it to be.&nbsp; RAW is only what is explicitly written.It does when they are mechanical in nature.I bolded the problem with your statement.&nbsp; Unless they always ignite things or never ignite things, the DM has to make RULINGS, which are then rules for his game, since under the same circumstances in the future, the rule repeats itself.I'm not 100% sure what you're intending to convey by this, but 4e's mechanics engage the fiction at many of the same places as 5e's. In both games, for instance, the mechanics and rules generate exactly the same sort of reason to think that a fireball spell might set combustible material alight.Your extrapolation is a RULING, which makes it a rule for your game.&nbsp; Under the same circumstances, your rule will repeat itself.&nbsp; Were your ruling part of RAW, I would be required to use it unless I house ruled it away.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6874937, member: 23751"] There is zero extrapolation there. The rule is 1 hit point per day of rest. You engage that rule each day. This is not a house rule, because the rules for interacting and damaging objects are on page 185. The rule is that the DM decides the AC, hit points and any resistances for the object. The sword does the damage. No extrapolation is necessary at all. If your ruling alters or adds to a mechanic, it's a house rule. It does not apply to any other house but yours. Okay. Aside from the fact that there are rules for swords cutting cord, I have to say... And? Yes, the DM has to come up with stuff. NONE of those things are RAW. It's impossible for it to be. RAW is only what is explicitly written. It does when they are mechanical in nature. I bolded the problem with your statement. Unless they always ignite things or never ignite things, the DM has to make RULINGS, which are then rules for his game, since under the same circumstances in the future, the rule repeats itself. I'm not 100% sure what you're intending to convey by this, but 4e's mechanics engage the fiction at many of the same places as 5e's. In both games, for instance, the mechanics and rules generate exactly the same sort of reason to think that a fireball spell might set combustible material alight. Your extrapolation is a RULING, which makes it a rule for your game. Under the same circumstances, your rule will repeat itself. Were your ruling part of RAW, I would be required to use it unless I house ruled it away. [/QUOTE]

Verification