Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="plisnithus8" data-source="post: 8983871" data-attributes="member: 6870553">I hear you saying a DM can alter rules as they wish, and I agree, but those aren’t official alterations.Official alterations within an edition are different than a DM’s specific alteration as well as any rules from previous editions. I still don’t see any evidence that the current rules as written have any expectations to be&nbsp; clarified by old editions. Or that something not mentioned in the current rule set stays as it was ruled in a previous edition unless it is specifically contradicted. 5e is designed to stand alone; it is made so that new players can pick it up without the burden of learning old systems. I have found no evidence of a 5e book referring back to old edition rules. I could be mistaken, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary. Some DMs/players that used previous editions might, but that doesn’t make it official. A DM has no expectation to have read, remember, or refer to old edition rules. If I am understanding you correctly, fluff should be considered more important than mechanics when looking at the rules for a spell. And that fluff could come from decades of lore covering all of the editions. I don’t see how to justify that with the general understanding of a spell as written, which only does what it says it does with a common understanding of what words mean.Besides this idea of lead prohibiting teleportation and teleportation taking someone to another dimension, are there other examples (preferably 5e only) of lore being more important than the mechanical description of a spell in determining how the spell works?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="plisnithus8, post: 8983871, member: 6870553"] I hear you saying a DM can alter rules as they wish, and I agree, but those aren’t official alterations. Official alterations within an edition are different than a DM’s specific alteration as well as any rules from previous editions. I still don’t see any evidence that the current rules as written have any expectations to be clarified by old editions. Or that something not mentioned in the current rule set stays as it was ruled in a previous edition unless it is specifically contradicted. 5e is designed to stand alone; it is made so that new players can pick it up without the burden of learning old systems. I have found no evidence of a 5e book referring back to old edition rules. I could be mistaken, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary. Some DMs/players that used previous editions might, but that doesn’t make it official. A DM has no expectation to have read, remember, or refer to old edition rules. If I am understanding you correctly, fluff should be considered more important than mechanics when looking at the rules for a spell. And that fluff could come from decades of lore covering all of the editions. I don’t see how to justify that with the general understanding of a spell as written, which only does what it says it does with a common understanding of what words mean. Besides this idea of lead prohibiting teleportation and teleportation taking someone to another dimension, are there other examples (preferably 5e only) of lore being more important than the mechanical description of a spell in determining how the spell works? [/QUOTE]

Verification